PP v Kishor Kumar & Pung Ah Kiang: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act, Admissibility of Statements

In Public Prosecutor v Kishor Kumar a/l Raguan and Pung Ah Kiang, the High Court of Singapore convicted Kishor and Pung on charges related to drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Kishor was charged with delivering diamorphine to Pung, while Pung was charged with possession of diamorphine for trafficking purposes. The court found both accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Kishor received the mandatory death sentence, while Pung received life imprisonment due to a certificate of substantive assistance issued by the Prosecution.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused convicted on their respective charges.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Kishor Kumar and Pung Ah Kiang were convicted of drug trafficking. Kishor received the death penalty, while Pung received life imprisonment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
Lim Jian Yi of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Paul Chia Kim Huat of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kevin Ho Hin Tat of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kishor Kumar a/l RaguanDefendantIndividualConvictedLost
Pung Ah KiangDefendantIndividualConvictedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Audrey LimJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim Jian YiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Paul Chia Kim HuatAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kevin Ho Hin TatAttorney-General’s Chambers
Dhanaraj James SelvarajJames Selvaraj LLC
Allagarsamy s/o PalaniyappanAllagarsamy & Co
Chung Ting FaiChung Ting Fai & Co
Ryan David Lim JiayongI.R.B Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. Kishor delivered a grey plastic bag containing black bundles to Pung.
  2. The black bundles contained not less than 36.05g of diamorphine.
  3. Pung was arrested with the grey plastic bag.
  4. Kishor claimed he believed the bundles contained 'stones'.
  5. Pung claimed he did not know what the grey bag contained.
  6. Pung's statements to the CNB were challenged for voluntariness and accuracy.
  7. Kishor's DNA was found on the black tapes of the bundles.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Kishor Kumar a/l Raguan and another, Criminal Case No 2 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 27

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Kishor delivered a grey plastic bag to Pung.
Pung was arrested by CNB officers.
Trial began.
Trial concluded.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Drug Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found both accused guilty of drug trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 2 SLR 95
      • [2019] 1 SLR 1003
  2. Admissibility of Statements
    • Outcome: The court admitted Pung's statements as evidence, finding they were made voluntarily.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 557
  3. Presumption of Knowledge
    • Outcome: The court found that Kishor and Pung failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 180

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Sentencing

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Possession of Controlled Drugs for Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 557SingaporeReaffirmed the two-stage test for determining the voluntariness of a statement.
Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matterUnknownYes[2020] 2 SLR 95SingaporeOutlined the elements required to prove trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA.
Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appealUnknownYes[2019] 1 SLR 1003SingaporeExplained the elements required to prove possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA.
Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2019] 2 SLR 254SingaporeClarified that to prove possession, the accused must know of the existence of the thing, but not necessarily its specific nature.
Gobi a/l Avedian v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2021] 1 SLR 180SingaporeAddressed the standard of evidence required to rebut the presumption of knowledge under the MDA.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 17(c) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 22 of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 23 of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Voluntariness of Statements
  • Presumption of Knowledge
  • Certificate of Substantive Assistance
  • Courier
  • Bai Fen
  • Kallu
  • Grey Bag
  • Black Bundles

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Diamorphine
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Admissibility of Statements

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Procedure80
Criminal Law75
Sentencing70
Admissibility of evidence60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Evidence
  • Sentencing