Kunasekaran v Public Prosecutor: Outrage of Modesty on Public Bus

In Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Kunasekaran against his conviction and sentence for outrage of modesty. The District Judge had convicted Kunasekaran for using criminal force on a 14-year-old girl by touching her groin area on a public bus. Chan Seng Onn J dismissed the appeal, finding the victim's testimony credible and the sentence not manifestly excessive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Kunasekaran appeals conviction and sentence for outrage of modesty. The High Court affirms the conviction, finding the victim's testimony convincing.

1.7 Decision Date

10 January 2018

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Ng Yiwen of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Thangavelu of Thangavelu LLC Syafiqah Ahmad Fu’ad of Thangavelu LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ng Yiwen	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Thangavelu	Thangavelu LLC
Syafiqah Ahmad Fu’ad	Thangavelu LLC

4. Facts

The victim, a 14-year-old girl, was commuting to school on a public bus.
The victim alleged that the appellant touched her groin area from outside her school skirt.
The incident occurred on 2 July 2013 at approximately 6.40am.
The victim reported the incident to her friend, teacher, and school counselor before making a police report.
The victim identified the appellant in a photo line-up.
The appellant claimed mistaken identity and denied touching the victim intentionally.

5. Formal Citations

Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9187 of 2016/01, [2018] SGHC 09

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-07-02	Incident occurred on SBS bus no 17.
2013-07-02	Victim made a police report.
2013-07-03	Victim and father saw the appellant on a bus.
2013-07-04	Victim and father saw the appellant at the bus stop.
2013-07-05	Appellant was arrested.
2017-08-04	Judgment reserved.
2018-01-11	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
Identification Evidence
- Outcome: The court found the victim's identification of the appellant to be reliable.
- Category: Procedural
Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court found the sentence of eight months' imprisonment not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against conviction
Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Outrage of Modesty

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Appeals
Sentencing

11. Industries

Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] SGCA 56	Singapore	Cited for the role of the appellate court in dealing with appeals against conviction.
Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals	Unknown	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 636	Singapore	Cited for the role of the appellate court in dealing with appeals against conviction.
Heng Aik Ren Thomas v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 142	Singapore	Cited for the three-step test for assessing the reliability of identification evidence.
R v Turnbull	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1977] QB 224	England	Cited as the origin of the guidelines for assessing the reliability of identification evidence.
R v Baskerville	Unknown	Yes	[1916] 2 KB 658	England	Cited regarding corroboration evidence.
Public Prosecutor v L (a minor)	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1041	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a victim of molest would have good reason to remember the molester.
Ye Wei Gen v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 1074	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a victim of molest would have good reason to remember the molester.
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik	Unknown	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'unusually convincing' testimony.
XP v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 107	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court must assess the complainant’s testimony against that of the accused.
Public Prosecutor v Chow Yee Sze	High Court	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 481	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing benchmark for outrage of modesty cases.
Public Prosecutor v UI	Unknown	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500	Singapore	Cited for the limited scope of intervention by an appellate court in disturbing sentences meted out by a lower court.
Chandresh Patel v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1995] 1 CLAS News 323	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing benchmark for outrage of modesty cases.
Public Prosecutor v BLV	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 154	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing benchmark for outrage of modesty cases.
GBR v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 296	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing framework regarding offences under s 354(2) of the Penal Code for aggravated outrage of modesty committed against a child under 14 years of age.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 449	Singapore	Cited for the two-step sentencing bands approach in the context of conducting a fundamental review of the sentencing framework for rape.
R v Taueki	New Zealand Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 NZLR 372	New Zealand	Cited for the methodology espoused by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372.
Abu Syeed Chowdhury v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 182	Singapore	Cited for the specificity required for a notional case.
Teo Keng Pong v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 890	Singapore	Cited regarding when a fine would suffice for outrage of modesty.
Ng Chiew Kiat v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 927	Singapore	Cited regarding when a fine would suffice for outrage of modesty.
Keeping Mark John v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 170	Singapore	Cited regarding sentencing precedents without grounds or explanations.
Janardana Jayasankarr v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 1288	Singapore	Cited regarding sentencing precedents without grounds or explanations.
Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 180	Singapore	Cited regarding sentencing precedents without grounds or explanations.
Soh Yang Tick v PP	Unknown	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR(R) 209	Singapore	Cited regarding when a fine would suffice for outrage of modesty.
Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1139	Singapore	Cited regarding the absence of antecedents.
Public Prosecutor v AOM	Unknown	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1057	Singapore	Cited regarding the absence of antecedents.
Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore	Unknown	Yes	[2009]	Singapore	Cited regarding the absence of antecedents.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022	Singapore	Cited regarding the absence of antecedents.
Amin bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 215	Singapore	Cited regarding the term of imprisonment should not be enhanced unless there are grounds to do so.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Leong and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 188	Singapore	Cited regarding the term of imprisonment should not be enhanced unless there are grounds to do so.
Public Prosecutor v Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundaram	District Court	Yes	[2017] SGDC 74	Singapore	The District Court decision being appealed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(1)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 157	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 325(1)(b)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 331	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 325(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Outrage of modesty
Identification evidence
Sentencing
Public transport
Vulnerable victim
Two-step sentencing bands approach

15.2 Keywords

Outrage of modesty
Public transport
Singapore
Criminal law
Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Outrage of Modesty	95
Criminal Law	90
Criminal Procedure	90
Offences	80
Evidence Law	70

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Outrage of Modesty
Sentencing