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 Singapore

1.2 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 NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorPlaintiffGovernment AgencyPartialPartial
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 ManikDefendantIndividualLostLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Andre Chong Wei MinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kumaresan s/o GohulabalanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Grace Chua Zhu ErnAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chooi Jing YenEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Eugene Singarajah ThuraisingamEugene Thuraisingam LLP

4. Facts

  1. Miya Manik was involved in a clash between rival cigarette syndicates at Tuas South Avenue 1.
  2. Munshi Abdur Rahim, a member of a rival syndicate, died after being attacked.
  3. Manik was initially charged with murder under section 300(c) of the Penal Code.
  4. The prosecution presented an alternative charge of murder read with section 34 of the Penal Code, alleging common intention.
  5. The court found that Manik was armed with a chopper during the incident.
  6. The court found insufficient evidence to prove that Manik inflicted the fatal injury.
  7. 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

  1. Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik, Criminal Case No 20 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 164

6. Timeline

DateEvent
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

  1. Complicity
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was complicit in causing grievous hurt.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Common Intention
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant shared a common intention to cause grievous hurt, but not to commit murder.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Murder
    • Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence to prove the defendant committed murder.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction for Murder
  2. Imprisonment
  3. Caning

9. Cause of Actions

  • Murder
  • Grievous Hurt

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wang Wenfeng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 590SingaporeCited for the elements necessary to prove a charge of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code.
Virsa Singh v State of PunjabSupreme CourtYesAIR 1958 SC 465IndiaCited 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 ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 1119SingaporeCited for the necessary elements for the use of s 34 of the Penal Code.
Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee Chen and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 249SingaporeCited 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 anotherCourt of AppealYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 582SingaporeCited to explain the requirement of intention in s 300(c) of the Penal Code.
Kho Jabing and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 634SingaporeReference to the common intention to murder.
Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 45SingaporeCited for the principle that a reasonable doubt could arise in the absence of sufficient evidence.
R v Lucas (Ruth)Queen's BenchYes[1981] QB 720England and WalesApproved by and applied to lies in court.
Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon PohHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 302SingaporeApproved by and applied to lies in court.
Browne v DunnHouse of LordsYes6 R 67United KingdomCited 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 LtdCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 141SingaporeCited 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 ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 771SingaporeCited 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 ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2018] 5 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the principle that intention and knowledge can be inferred from objective conduct and surrounding circumstances.
Shaiful Edham bin Adam and another v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 442SingaporeCited for the principle that common intention may be formed on the spot, just before the commission of the criminal act.
Arumugam Selvaraj v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2019] 5 SLR 881SingaporeCited 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 ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 247SingaporeCited for the appropriate approach to take in sentencing under s 326 of the Penal Code.
Public Prosecutor v BDBCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 127SingaporeCited for the approach to sentencing under s 325 of the Penal Code.
Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical CouncilCourt of AppealYes[2017] 5 SLR 356SingaporeCited 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 ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 406SingaporeCited 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 MengHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited for the principle that group offences are aggravating because they generally result in greater harm.
Public Prosecutor v Muhamad Hasik bin SaharHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 1069SingaporeCited for the principle that gang fights and running street battles have absolutely no place in a civilised society.
Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin ConstanceHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 24SingaporeCited for the law on the drawing of inferences in criminal cases.
Tan Chor Jin v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 306SingaporeCited for the law on the drawing of inferences in criminal cases.
Sinniah Pillay v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 704SingaporeHelpful 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 NameJurisdiction
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 34Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 326Singapore
Penal Code s 320(aa)Singapore
Penal Code s 381Singapore
Penal Code s 325Singapore
Penal Code s 324Singapore
Penal Code s 323Singapore
Penal Code s 394Singapore
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 21Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 128Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 128(2)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 129Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 131Singapore
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

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Complicity
  • Common Intention
  • Murder
  • Sentencing