Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik: Murder Charge Reduced to Grievous Hurt with Dangerous Weapon
In Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik, the High Court of Singapore addressed a case where Miya Manik was initially charged with murder for the death of Munshi Abdur Rahim during a clash between rival cigarette syndicates. The court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, ultimately amended the charge to grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon under section 326 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, finding insufficient evidence to prove the initial murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Manik was convicted and sentenced accordingly.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Charge amended to one under section 326 read with section 34 of the Penal Code; convicted and sentenced accordingly.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Miya Manik's murder charge was reduced to grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon. The court found insufficient evidence for murder conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public Prosecutor | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Partial | Partial | Andre Chong Wei Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kumaresan s/o Gohulabalan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Grace Chua Zhu Ern of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
Miya Manik | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Valerie Thean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Andre Chong Wei Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
Kumaresan s/o Gohulabalan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
Grace Chua Zhu Ern | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Miya Manik was involved in a clash between rival cigarette syndicates at Tuas South Avenue 1.
- Munshi Abdur Rahim, a member of a rival syndicate, died after being attacked.
- Manik was initially charged with murder under section 300(c) of the Penal Code.
- The prosecution presented an alternative charge of murder read with section 34 of the Penal Code, alleging common intention.
- The court found that Manik was armed with a chopper during the incident.
- The court found insufficient evidence to prove that Manik inflicted the fatal injury.
- The court amended the charge to grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon under section 326 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik, Criminal Case No 20 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 164
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
Munshi Abdur Rahim attacked at Tuas South Avenue 1 and died. | |
Miya Manik arrested. | |
Trial began. | |
Amended charge read and explained to Miya Manik. | |
Judgment issued. | |
Grounds of decision delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Complicity
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant was complicit in causing grievous hurt.
- Category: Substantive
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant shared a common intention to cause grievous hurt, but not to commit murder.
- Category: Substantive
- Murder
- Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence to prove the defendant committed murder.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction for Murder
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Grievous Hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wang Wenfeng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 590 | Singapore | Cited for the elements necessary to prove a charge of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code. |
Virsa Singh v State of Punjab | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1958 SC 465 | India | Cited for the elements necessary to prove a charge of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code. |
Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited for the necessary elements for the use of s 34 of the Penal Code. |
Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee Chen and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 249 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that Section 34 serves to impose liability on offenders in accordance with their common intention once they have participated in a particular criminal act, where the criminal act is commonly intended. |
Public Prosecutor v Lim Poh Lye and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited to explain the requirement of intention in s 300(c) of the Penal Code. |
Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 634 | Singapore | Reference to the common intention to murder. |
Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a reasonable doubt could arise in the absence of sufficient evidence. |
R v Lucas (Ruth) | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1981] QB 720 | England and Wales | Approved by and applied to lies in court. |
Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 | Singapore | Approved by and applied to lies in court. |
Browne v Dunn | House of Lords | Yes | 6 R 67 | United Kingdom | Cited for the rule that a submission should be put to the witness to give him the opportunity to meet that submission. |
Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that a submission should be put to the witness to give him the opportunity to meet that submission. |
Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that a submission should be put to the witness to give him the opportunity to meet that submission. |
Muhammad Khalis bin Ramlee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that intention and knowledge can be inferred from objective conduct and surrounding circumstances. |
Shaiful Edham bin Adam and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 442 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that common intention may be formed on the spot, just before the commission of the criminal act. |
Arumugam Selvaraj v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 881 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the context of grievous hurt, the necessary common intention does not need to be to cause the particular grievous hurt inflicted, but need only be to cause an injury within the category of hurt as defined under s 320 of the Penal Code. |
Ng Soon Kim v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 247 | Singapore | Cited for the appropriate approach to take in sentencing under s 326 of the Penal Code. |
Public Prosecutor v BDB | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 127 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to sentencing under s 325 of the Penal Code. |
Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 356 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no general proposition that any or all delays in prosecution would merit a discount in sentencing. |
Lai Oei Miu Jenny v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that personal circumstances and hardship are not in general mitigating, short of any particularly exceptional personal circumstances. |
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that group offences are aggravating because they generally result in greater harm. |
Public Prosecutor v Muhamad Hasik bin Sahar | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1069 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that gang fights and running street battles have absolutely no place in a civilised society. |
Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24 | Singapore | Cited for the law on the drawing of inferences in criminal cases. |
Tan Chor Jin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 306 | Singapore | Cited for the law on the drawing of inferences in criminal cases. |
Sinniah Pillay v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 704 | Singapore | Helpful as an example of when the maximum term of years was imposed for s 326 of the Penal Code. |
13. Applicable Rules
Rule Name |
---|
No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
---|---|
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 302(2) | Singapore |
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(c) | Singapore |
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 326 | Singapore |
Penal Code s 320(aa) | Singapore |
Penal Code s 381 | Singapore |
Penal Code s 325 | Singapore |
Penal Code s 324 | Singapore |
Penal Code s 323 | Singapore |
Penal Code s 394 | Singapore |
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 17(1) | Singapore |
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 18(1) | Singapore |
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 21 | Singapore |
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 128 | Singapore |
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 128(2) | Singapore |
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 129 | Singapore |
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 131 | Singapore |
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 129(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cigarette Syndicate
- Common Intention
- Chopper
- Grievous Hurt
- Tuas
- Section 34 Penal Code
- Section 326 Penal Code
- Section 300 Penal Code
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Murder
- Grievous Hurt
- Common Intention
- Syndicate
- Chop
17. Areas of Law
Area Name | Relevance Score |
---|---|
Criminal Law | 90 |
Complicity | 90 |
Criminal Procedure | 85 |
Sentencing | 80 |
Offences | 80 |
Murder | 75 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Complicity
- Common Intention
- Murder
- Sentencing