Judgment Header
Govindaraj Perumalsamy and Others v Public Prosecutor and Other Appeals [2004] SGHC 16
Court DecisionSGHC
[2004] SGHC 16
[2004] SGHC 16
General Division of the High Court of Singapore4 Feb 2004MA 137/2003, 138/2003, 139/2003, 140/2003
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
This decision has been distinguished in a later judgment and cited in 2 other later decisions. Confirm it is still good law before relying on it.
- Distinguished by [2025] SGHC 2
- Distinguished by [2026] SGHC 51
Detected automatically from later judgments; not a substitute for a citator check.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
4Later cases and laws citing this decision
“[25]. A flawed witness is not always an untruthful one and innocent discrepancies must be distinguished from deliberate lies: Govindaraj Perulmalsamy and others v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2004] SGHC 16 at [30]. The question for the court is thus whether the totality of the evidence suggests that the witness”
“imony appear to be material, “a flawed witness does not equate to an untruthful witness”; innocent discrepancies must be distinguished from deliberate lies (Govindaraj Perumalsamy v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 16 at [30]). The question for the court is “whether the totality of the evidence suggests that the witnesses”
“t at all. It is open to the court to accept a witness’s evidence on key facts in issue despite inconsistencies in his evidence: Govindaraj Perumalsamy and others v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2004] SGHC 16 at [31].”
“must be distinguished from deliberate lies: Tan Hui Meng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2025] SGHC 2 at [35], citing Govindaraj Perulmalsamy and others v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2004] SGHC 16 at [30].”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: MA 137/2003, 138/2003, 139/2003, 140/2003
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2004-02-04
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.