Public Prosecutor v Tharema Vejayan: Murder, Intoxication, Diminished Responsibility, Provocation
In 2009, the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Public Prosecutor v Tharema Vejayan s/o Govindasamy, where the accused was charged with murder for causing the death of Smaelmeeral Binte Abdul Aziz. The primary legal issues revolved around defenses of intoxication, diminished responsibility, and grave and sudden provocation. The court rejected all defenses and found the accused guilty of murder, sentencing him to death.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted and sentenced to death.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court: Tharema Vejayan was convicted of murder. Defenses of intoxication, diminished responsibility, and provocation were rejected.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | |
| Tharema Vejayan s/o Govindasamy | Defense | Individual | Convicted | Lost | Rajan Supramaniam of Independent Practitioner Glenn Knight of Independent Practitioner S Radakrishnan of Independent Practitioner Aziz Tayabali of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| David Khoo | Public Prosecutor |
| Stella Tan | Public Prosecutor |
| Adrian Ooi | Public Prosecutor |
| Rajan Supramaniam | Independent Practitioner |
| Glenn Knight | Independent Practitioner |
| S Radakrishnan | Independent Practitioner |
| Aziz Tayabali | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- The accused and the deceased were married in 2002 and had two children.
- The deceased filed for divorce in March 2007 and obtained an interim judgment in June 2007.
- On the night before her death, the deceased was drinking with friends.
- The accused met the deceased at a bus stop, became angry, and assaulted her.
- The accused dragged the deceased to the 13th floor of a block of flats.
- The accused threw or pushed the deceased over the parapet wall, causing her death.
- The accused had consumed alcohol prior to the incident.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Tharema Vejayan s/o Govindasamy, CC 20/2008, [2009] SGHC 144
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused and deceased married. | |
| Son born to accused and deceased. | |
| Daughter born to accused and deceased. | |
| Deceased obtained a personal protection order against the accused. | |
| Deceased filed for divorce. | |
| Deceased obtained an interim judgment for divorce. | |
| Deceased went drinking with friends. | |
| Deceased died at Block 181 Stirling Road. | |
| Accused surrendered to the police. | |
| ASP Cindy New recorded s 121 statements from accused. | |
| ASP Cindy New recorded s 121 statements from accused. | |
| ASP Cindy New recorded s 121 statements from accused. | |
| ASP Cindy New recorded s 121 statements from accused. | |
| ASP Cindy New recorded s 121 statements from accused. | |
| ASP Cindy New recorded s 121 statements from accused and brought accused on crime scene visit. | |
| Dr Kenneth Koh submitted report on the mental state of the accused. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Murder
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of murder under Section 300 of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Intoxication
- Outcome: The court rejected the defense of intoxication, finding that the accused was aware of his actions and able to form the requisite intention.
- Category: Substantive
- Diminished Responsibility
- Outcome: The court rejected the defense of diminished responsibility, finding that the accused did not suffer from an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his mental responsibility.
- Category: Substantive
- Grave and Sudden Provocation
- Outcome: The court rejected the defense of grave and sudden provocation, finding that the accused did not lose self-control and the provocation was not grave and sudden.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were obtained voluntarily from the accused and admitted the statements.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction for Murder
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Homicide
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zailani bin Ahmad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 356 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has to take a global approach in determining whether an accused’s statement was voluntarily made. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Thian Lai | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 122 | Singapore | Cited for the test of voluntariness comprising elements of both objectivity and subjectivity. |
| Public Prosecutor v L Hassan & 2 Ors | High Court | No | [1988] SGHC 357 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case; cited as an analogous case where statements were found inadmissible due to heavy prompting. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mazlan bin Maidun and Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 512 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statement recorded from a suspect may be admitted even if no caution has been read to him. |
| Mohamed Bachu Miah v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 249 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statement made by an accused may not be admitted in evidence if it is tainted by inducement, threat or promise. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leong Siew Chor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 290 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the alleged failure to read back the statements to the accused also did not affect the admissibility of the statements, so long as they were voluntarily obtained. |
| Panya Martmontree and Others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the alleged failure to read back the statements to the accused also did not affect the admissibility of the statements, so long as they were voluntarily obtained. |
| Public Prosecutor v Vanasan Sathiadew and Others | High Court | Yes | [1989] SGHC 87 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the alleged failure to read back the statements to the accused also did not affect the admissibility of the statements, so long as they were voluntarily obtained. |
| Ranwilage Fernando v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 893 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that all that is required in a murder trial is proof of the act and mens rea; it is not necessary to establish motive. |
| Neville v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 153 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an intention to kill can be inferred from the facts surrounding the fatal wound or injury inflicted upon the deceased. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Watt Song | High Court | Yes | [1993] SGHC 159 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an intention to kill can be inferred from the facts surrounding the fatal wound or injury inflicted upon the deceased. |
| Tan Chor Jin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR 306 | Singapore | Cited for the clarification that insanity by intoxication was a concept to be distinguished from the defence of unsoundness of mind and for the requirements to be met under s 86(2) of the Penal Code. |
| Jin Yugang v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] SGCA 22 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that objective evidence of the accused’s level of intoxication is crucial. |
| Mohd Sulaiman v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 465 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even if the accused can prove that he had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol, the surrounding facts must show that he was so intoxicated that he could not form the intention which is a necessary element of the alleged offence. |
| R v Byrne | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1960] 2 QB 396 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of 'abnormality of mind' as a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal. |
| Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 70 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must be satisfied that the accused was suffering from a condition that a reasonable man would consider abnormal, and that the abnormality was of such a degree as to impair the accused’s cognitive functions or self-control. |
| Sek Kim Wah v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR 107 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even where medical opinion is unchallenged, the trial judges would be perfectly entitled to reject or differ from the opinions of the medical men, if there are other facts on which they could do so. |
| Contemplacion v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even where medical opinion is unchallenged, the trial judges would be perfectly entitled to reject or differ from the opinions of the medical men, if there are other facts on which they could do so. |
| Zainul Abidin bin Malik v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 654 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even where medical opinion is unchallenged, the trial judges would be perfectly entitled to reject or differ from the opinions of the medical men, if there are other facts on which they could do so. |
| Seah Kok Meng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of the defence of grave and sudden provocation. |
| Lau Lee Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 628 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mere assertion would not suffice in ascertaining the loss of self control. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwan Cin Cheng | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the introduction of the ‘reasonable man test’ to deny the defence of grave and sudden provocation to those who overreact because they are exceptionally pugnacious and bad tempered and over-sensitive. |
| Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR 1058 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the antithesis of a loss of self-control is deliberation and even calculation. |
| PP v Tsang Yuk Chung | High Court | Yes | [1988] SLR 812 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the stabbing was a calculated and deliberate act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 302 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 | Singapore |
| Section 300 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 85 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 86 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Exception 1 to s 300 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 147(3) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Intoxication
- Diminished Responsibility
- Grave and Sudden Provocation
- Mens Rea
- Actus Reus
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Delusional Disorder
- Black Magic
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Intoxication
- Diminished Responsibility
- Provocation
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Murder | 99 |
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Penal Code | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Psychiatry | 40 |
| Public Prosecutor | 40 |
| Forensic Science | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Murder
- Intoxication
- Diminished Responsibility
- Provocation