Public Prosecutor v Pooraneswaran Rajeeththan [2026] SGMC 86

Introduction

The accused was convicted after trial on the following two charges:-

1st charge (MAC-900590-2024)

are charged that you, on 27 February 2023 at about 11.45am, at the auditorium of the [name of Home redacted] Home located at [address redacted], Singapore, did use criminal force to [name of victim redacted], knowing it to be likely that you would thereby outrage her modesty, to wit, you grabbed her waist with your left hand and squeezed her right breast with your right hand, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 354(1) of the Penal Code 1871.

2nd charge (MAC-900591-2024)

are charged that you, on 27 February 2023 at about 11.45am, at the auditorium of the [name of Home redacted] Home located at [address redacted], Singapore, did attempt to use criminal force to [name of victim redacted], knowing it to be likely that you would thereby outrage her modesty, to wit, you turned her to face you and attempted to kiss her, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 354(1) of the Penal Code 1871 (“PC”) read with section 511(1) of the PC and punishable under section 512(2) of the PC.

I sentenced the accused to nine months’ imprisonment for the first charge and to one month’s imprisonment for the second charge, with the sentences to run concurrently. Sentence was backdated to the date of his arrest (28 February 2023), with the period of custody (until 1 March 2023) taken into account in computing sentence.

The accused has filed an appeal against conviction and sentence. Sentence has been stayed and he has been released on bail pending appeal.

Background facts

At the material time, the accused was the Head of the Facility Management Department and Management Information System Department of [name of Home redacted] (“the home”).

The victim, whose name is stated in the charges, was a senior physiotherapist associate at the home. Originally, her physiotherapy sessions were conducted at the second level. Due to covid-19 (“covid”) restrictions and the need for safe-distancing measures, these sessions were moved to the auditorium, which was on the fourth level. Her morning session was from 8.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., while her afternoon session was from 1.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.. Her workstation was also re-located to the auditorium, and she would write her physiotherapy notes there.

The auditorium had three doors which were on the same side. These were referred to as Door 1, Door 2 and Door 3. Door 1 was closest to the lift which was outside the auditorium. Door 2 was the middle door and was between Door 1 and Door 3. Door 3 (which was furthest from Door 1), was the door nearest to the toilet which was located outside the auditorium.

On 27 February 2023 at about 11.47 a.m., the victim left the auditorium after her morning physiotherapy session to collect her packed lunch (which was provided by the home) from the pantry at level 1. While she was away, the accused entered the auditorium at about 11.52 a.m.. After collecting her food, the victim took the lift to level 4 to return to the auditorium where she intended to eat her lunch.

As the victim approached Door 1 at about 11.53 a.m., the accused had by coincidence pushed it open to leave the auditorium. However, he remained there when the victim entered. The accused and the victim then had a conversation, the subject matter of which was in dispute. However, it was not in dispute that the victim placed her food at her workstation and proceeded towards Door 3, as she intended to go to the toilet to wash her hands.

The prosecution alleged that as the victim was walking towards Door 3, the accused blocked her way and molested her. He grabbed her waist with his left hand and squeezed her right breast with his right hand (1st charge). Further, he turned the victim to face him and attempted to kiss her (2nd charge).

The accused left the auditorium by Door 1 at about 11.57 a.m., while the victim left the auditorium via Door 3 to go to the toilet.

The CCTV system captured some of the movements of the victim and the accused in and out of the auditorium. These were as follows:-

(a) 11.47.11: the victim exited the auditorium through Door 1;

(b) 11.52.08: the accused exited the lift and entered the auditorium through Door 1;

(c) 11.53.25: the victim exited the lift. Door 1 opened as she approached, and she entered the auditorium; and

(d) 11.57.40: the accused exited the auditorium via Door 1 to take the lift.

The CCTV did not capture footage of the victim leaving the auditorium or returning to it via Door 3.

After her afternoon physiotherapy session, the victim sent several WhatsApp messages (Exhibit P4) to Tay Huae Huang Laurence (PW6) (“Laurence”), Purchasing Officer, Finance Department at about 2.56 p.m.. She informed him in one message, “I will tell you something”, and in another message “private”. They met at the pantry at about 4.00 p.m., where the victim informed Laurence that the accused had molested her.

Laurence then went to the office of Constance Tan (PW2) (“Constance”), the Head of Human Resources (“HR”), to let her know what had transpired. A meeting was then arranged at the Resource Centre. Constance also asked Siah Zhuo Lin Lucas (PW3) (“Lucas”) the Head of Social Work to be present. Lucas was in temporary charge of the home as the Executive Director, Chian Phiang Nam (PW8) (“Chian”) was on leave. Laurence stated that he was not present at this meeting.

At the Resource Centre, the victim stated that the accused molested her and tried to kiss her. Constance asked the victim to prepare a report as Chian was not in Singapore at that time. The victim submitted her report (Exhibit P12) to the HR department on 28 February 2023 at about 8.30 a.m..

Chian returned to work on 28 February 2023 and met Constance and Lucas to discuss the matter. The victim was later called to the meeting. She indicated that she had discussed the matter with her family and wanted to make a police report. According to Chian, Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”) rules also made it mandatory to report a case of molest. With the victim’s input, Chian drew a plan of the auditorium (Exhibit P5). He also indicated the movement of the parties therein, leading to the alleged offences.

Constance accompanied the victim to Sembawang NPC to make a police report in the afternoon of 28 February 2023. The case was assigned to SIO Lek Jia Hao Dickson (PW1) (“IO Dickson”). He took the victim’s statement and later went to the home to conduct investigations. The accused was arrested at 10.45 p.m. that day at Woodlands Police Division.

The accused consistently denied molesting the victim. He denied this in his statement to the police recorded on 28 February 2023 (Exhibit P13), and in his cautioned statements which were recorded on 16 January 2024 (Exhibits D1 and D2).

The prosecution’s case

The victim testified that when she entered the auditorium by Door 1 after collecting her food, she saw the accused holding a miniature elephant and a camera stand. He remained in the auditorium to talk to her. He remarked that he had not seen her for a long time. She said that she had just returned from the Philippines as she was on home leave, and he asked about this. She asked about his family, his application for Singapore permanent residency and his aunt. He asked for a hug, but she said no. She then left her lunch box at her workstation and walked towards Door 3 to go to the toilet to wash her hands.

As she approached Door 3, the accused blocked her way by extending his arms. She turned her back to him, but he grabbed her waist with his left hand and squeezed her right breast with his right hand over her clothes. She struggled and tried to free herself by using her elbows. However, he was “so strong”. She felt shocked and distressed as she could not free herself. She then looked at a corner and prayed for divine help. She told the accused that there was a CCTV, but he said, “I don’t care” as he knew that there was no CCTV. The force used was “a bit strong” and she felt pain after that.

The accused, who was not wearing a mask, then turned her to face him and tried to kiss her on her lips. The victim testified, “He tried to kiss me, but luckily, I’m wearing mask.” She avoided his kiss by turning her head left, right and backwards. The accused grabbed her wrist, but she managed to free herself by pushing her hand outwards. She told him to go away. She then used Door 3 and went to the toilet to compose herself and wash her hands. The accused left the auditorium via Door 1. She was unsure how long the whole encounter lasted for, but estimated that it was for a few minutes.

After washing her hands, the victim returned to her workstation to compose herself. She was in shock and could not eat. However, she managed to continue with her afternoon physiotherapy session. After her session, she was unable to complete her paperwork as she was still thinking about the assault and felt scared. She did not know what to do or who to tell but decided to message Laurence, whom she found approachable.

When she met Laurence at the pantry, she was distressed and tearful and related to him what had occurred. They then went to the HR department. Later, she met Constance and Lucas at the Resource Centre, where she informed them about what happened in the auditorium. Constance asked her to draft a report. She submitted her report the next day.

The defence case

The accused testified that on 27 February 2023, he went on his usual rounds at the home. He arrived at the auditorium at about 11.30 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. to conduct checks as there had been an event the day before. No one was present when he entered the auditorium. He noticed that all the air-conditioners (“aircons”), three fans and lights were switched on. He turned off the aircons and fans. He also picked up several items which had been left behind so that he could bring them back to his office. These were a camera stand, several rechargeable batteries, an elephant decoration and some hanging decorations.

To leave the auditorium, he used his shoulder to push Door 1 open. The victim walked in. She held a plate of food in her left hand and a bowl in her right hand. He asked her why she was bringing her food to the auditorium. The victim did not respond but walked straight to her desk. He repeated his question but again received no response. He then asked her why the aircons were all switched on. Instead of answering him, the victim kept repeating “I miss my country” as she walked towards her desk.

At some point, the victim turned and walked back towards him and said that she missed her country and family and that she did not like Singapore. He asked about the aircons again but did not receive a reply. He then asked about her family. The victim talked about her family and asked about his aunt (whom she had helped with physiotherapy) and when she was coming to Singapore. At that point, the accused forgot about the aircons and just focused on the victim’s question. They also spoke about his family and his application for permanent residency. The victim offered to do physiotherapy with his aunt as she was in need of money. As he was about to leave, the victim told him to send her regards to his aunt. The victim said she was going to the washroom and walked away from him.

As he was leaving the auditorium, he stopped to adjust a curtain which was not hooked on properly. He then left the auditorium by using his left hand to open the door while holding some items. As he left the auditorium, he saw the victim walking towards the washroom.

Applicable legal principles

To prove its case, the prosecution must discharge its burden of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. In this respect, the prosecution accepted that as there was no evidence to corroborate the victim’s testimony, her evidence had to be unusually convincing in order for a conviction to be safely sustained.

The term “unusually convincing” does not entail a different standard of proof. In Public Prosecutor v GCK [2020] 1 SLR 486, Sundaresh Menon, CJ, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal stated:-

90. Put simply, the “unusually convincing” standard entails that the witness’s testimony alone is sufficient to prove the Prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt: see Teo Keng Pong v Public Prosecutor [1996] 2 SLR(R) 890 at [73]. The overwhelming consideration that triggers the application of the standard is the amount and availability of evidence: see also Kwan Peng Hong ([72] supra) at [29].

In a sense, the “unusually convincing” standard is not a “test” at all, but rather, a heuristic tool. It is a cautionary reminder to the court of the high threshold that the Prosecution must meet in order to secure a conviction, and of the anxious scrutiny that is required because of the severe consequences that will follow from a conviction. That scrutiny is directed towards the sufficiency of a witness’s testimony, which is inextricably linked to the ultimate inquiry of whether the case against the accused person has been proved by the Prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt: see Mohammed Liton at [39].

In Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor [2018] 4 SLR 550 (“Kunasekaran”), Chan Seng Onn, J (as he then was) stated at [26]:-

A complainant’s testimony would be considered “unusually convincing” only if the testimony, “when weighed against the overall backdrop of the available facts and circumstances, contains that ring of truth which leaves the court satisfied that no reasonable doubt exists in favour of the accused.” A trial judge evaluates whether this standard is met by weighing the demeanour of the complainant alongside both the internal and external consistencies found in the complainant’s testimony. See Haliffie ([14] supra) at [28] citing Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 at [39]).

Evaluation of the evidence

The victim’s evidence was internally and externally consistent on material aspects

In my assessment, the victim’s evidence was clear and cogent. It was internally and externally consistent in all material matters. She did not embellish her evidence. As the prosecution submitted, she gave a detailed and textured account of each of the offending acts. Her evidence was not shaken in cross-examination, and Defence Counsel could not point to any material inconsistencies in her evidence. There was no reason for her to fabricate evidence against the accused and falsely claim that he molested her. There was no benefit in her doing so.

The victim was consistent in her narration of events

The victim reported the matter soon after she was molested. She took the initiative to contact Laurence via WhatsApp at about 2.56 p.m., after her afternoon physiotherapy session. She informed him that she had something private to tell him. She wanted to confide in him as she found him approachable. There was thus no delay in reporting the matter.

Laurence testified that when he met the victim, she looked very sick and was trembling and crying. This was consistent with the victim’s claim that she was shocked and distressed. When he asked her to tell him what happened so that he could assist her, she said that somebody had molested her. He stated, “Because she cannot speak, so she just demonstrated to me.”

According to Laurence, the victim informed him that the accused and her exchanged pleasantries, talked about her holiday, and he enquired about her family. Later the accused made fun of her and said, “you should have one baby with me.” The accused also asked whether he could give her a hug and she said no. After she put her food on the table, she walked to the entrance that led to the toilet. The accused followed her from behind and grabbed her with his left hand and used his right hand to squeeze her breast. After that he turned her around and tried to kiss her, but she was wearing a mask. She turned away and fought him with her elbow. The accused grabbed hold of her hand to block her from going away. Then she shouted at the accused to ask him to get away, and the accused left the room.

Her account to Laurence was consistent with her evidence in court. The victim gave a similar account to Constance and Lucas. She also gave a consistent account when she met Chian and Constance the next day. The defence did not point to any discrepancies between what she told them and her evidence in court in the closing submissions.

Her report to the HR department (Exhibit P12/P12T) was also largely consistent with her account in court, although it was not as detailed as the evidence she gave. She stated:-

[a]t around 11:45am, I returned to the auditorium (my workstation) after collecting my lunch from the pantry. I saw Rajeethan in the auditorium and asked me about my home leave. The topic lead to family matters. Then he teased that I should have one more kid with him. Then he asked me to have a hug then I said NO. Then he follow me until the last door then hugged me at the back with one hand on my waist and the other hand squeezing my Right breast from behind. Then I struggled to free myself with my elbows. He then grab me to face him and tried to kiss me (fortunately I’m wearing mask). Then I turn my face away from him. He then hugged me tighter and Grabbing my wrist as I’m trying to struggle. He tried to block my way when I struggled to freed myself from his body. After that I shouted him to get away & he finally went out I was very distressed & shocked after that. After I recovered, I continue with my work. After treating the last patient, I tried to do paperwork but I cannot concentrate so I confined to my colleague who brought me to our HR dept to make a report.

The defence put to Laurence that his evidence about what the victim told him was based on the victim’s report, Exhibit P12/P12T. However, Laurence’s testimony that he had never seen the report before was uncontroverted. He stated that his evidence was based exactly on what the victim told him. He could remember what she said word for word because this was a very unique incident involving his two friends, and that what happened was very odd. Laurence had no reason to lie and was in my view a truthful witness.

The victim’s demeanour indicated that she was telling the truth

The victim was upset when she related her account of events to the various witnesses. Laurence observed that the victim was visibly upset when he met her in the pantry. When she saw Chian the next morning, he observed that she was crying when she was explaining the incident. At the police station, Constance noticed that the victim was very nervous and was stammering when she spoke to IO Dickson. IO Dickson allowed Constance to accompany the victim into the interview room as he felt that the victim needed support as she was not very comfortable. He testified that the victim was still traumatized, showed her emotions and cried when he began to speak to her.

I had the benefit of observing the victim’s demeanour when she gave evidence. She responded to questions directly and was not evasive. She also became visibly upset when she narrated her account of events and was indignant that the accused had molested her. In my perception, she was genuinely upset over what had occurred, and when she broke down on several occasions when testifying, this was not an act.

Overall, the victim’s demeanour indicated that she was telling the truth. There was nothing in her demeanour which suggested that she was untruthful about what happened. Her evidence that she started to attend counselling from 22 March 2023 was not challenged. There would be no need for her to undergo counselling unless something had happened to her.

Apparent inconsistencies raised by the defence were not material

The defence submitted that the victim’s testimony should not be accepted as there were discrepancies in her evidence. However, the discrepancies raised by the defence were not material. They were at most trivial and related to peripheral issues.

The discrepancy between the time indicated in the CCTV footage and the charges was not material

The CCTV footage showed that the victim returned to the auditorium with her food at about 11.53 a.m., and that the accused left the auditorium at about 11.57 a.m.. There was no suggestion that the timing indicated in the CCTV footage was inaccurate. The offences would have occurred during these four minutes. However, the charges stated the time of the offences as “at about 11.45 a.m.”.

The defence took issue with the prosecution’s failure to amend the charges to more accurately reflect the time. The prosecution had indicated that it would apply to amend the charges but failed to do so. The defence submitted that this showed how unsure the prosecution was of its case.

While the prosecution, which had the benefit of the timestamps from the CCTV, was remiss in failing to specify the time with greater precision, this did not make them unsure of their case. Their case was that the phrase “at about 11.45 a.m.” would cover the timestamps indicated in the CCTV. Further, the issue of timing was not crucial, since the CCTV footage established that the victim and the accused were in the auditorium together for a period of about four minutes. If I had deemed the issue of timing to be material, I would have amended the charges to reflect the precise times shown in the CCTV footage.

The victim’s mistake that she used the stairs instead of the lift to return to the auditorium was not material

The victim’s evidence that she took the stairs to return to the auditorium was inconsistent with the objective CCTV evidence which showed that she used the lift. While I accepted that there was an inconsistency, I rejected the contention that this eroded her credibility in terms of her recollection and that a reasonable doubt arose as to her credibility and version of events.

While the victim’s recollection of how she returned to level 4 may not have been accurate, this was not material, since it was not in dispute that she entered the auditorium and met the accused there. Her explanation that her mistake was due to the passage of time was reasonable. When asked why she said that she took the staircase [instead of the lift], she stated:-

That was few years ago and what is in my mind is the thing that happened inside that I cannot forget, even in my entire life.

The relevant issue was whether her recollection and testimony of what occurred after she entered the auditorium was accurate and could be relied on. In this respect, the victim testified:-

I am very sure how he---he squeezed my breast and how he grabbed my waist. I cannot---I cannot forget that in my entire life. I will never forget that.

I might be---there’s other, I forgot, because I was shocked and I’m not aware of all the timings because I am not looking at my watch and I’m not aware of it, but I’m really sure that he grabbed me and squeezed my breasts. I will never forget that in my entire life. It affects me a lot. Nightmares. I have nightmares.

Thus, the violation on the victim was so traumatic and was something that she could never forget. While she may not have remembered the minor detail of how she returned to the auditorium, her recall on how she was molested by the accused would not be affected, since this was etched in her mind.

When and where the accused put down the items he was carrying was not material

The defence asserted that the victim’s claim that she was molested in the manner she described was doubtful. She did not say that she saw the accused put down the things he was holding, but only thought that he placed the items on a table near Door 3. Further, when the accused was leaving the auditorium, the victim did not see him carrying any items.

I failed to see how this would cast doubt on the victim’s honesty or truthfulness as alleged by the defence. The victim’s evidence clearly indicated that the accused was empty-handed when he molested her. He must have put the items he was holding somewhere. It was immaterial that the victim did not see him do so or know precisely where he left the things. On the contrary, the victim did not embellish her evidence and was honest about what she saw or did not see.

How the meeting was arranged with Laurence at the pantry was not material

The evidence adduced did not show precisely how the meeting between the victim and Laurence in the pantry was arranged. The WhatsApp messages between them only indicated a meeting at SSC i.e. Sembawang Shopping Centre. It was not clear how they had re-arranged to meet at the pantry instead.

Laurence testified that he felt that it was better to meet in the pantry. He thought that he may have used the landline in his office to call the landline in the auditorium, and that there was a conversation with the victim to go to the pantry. However, the defence claimed that as there was no landline in the auditorium, “the prosecution’s case is thrown in doubt”, as there could not have been a landline call. This claim is devoid of merit.

Defence counsel failed to draw the court’s attention to any positive evidence which showed that there was no landline in the auditorium. Instead, it merely referred to what had been put to Laurence i.e. “… based on my instructions, there’s no landline on her side.” It was doubtful that the claim by the defence that there was no landline in the auditorium was even factually correct. In any event, the precise way in which the meeting was arranged was not important, since the evidence clearly established that the victim approached Laurence to speak to him, and that they met in the pantry where the victim confided in him.

No basis for the defence claim that the IO should have seized clothes for DNA analysis

In the course of investigations, IO Dickson did not seize the victim’s uniform and the accused’s clothes (collectively “the clothes”) for DNA analysis. The defence contended that this was a very material irregularity which denied the accused a valid legitimate opportunity to prove his innocence and that this cast doubts on the prosecution’s case.

This submission was misconceived. Defence counsel failed to cite any provision or case law which mandated the seizure of the clothes for DNA testing. IO Dickson’s testimony that seizure would be at his discretion was uncontroverted. Further, the victim had laundered her clothes and there would have been little point in seizing her clothes for DNA analysis. There was thus nothing irregular about IO Dickson’s failure to seize the clothes.

The submission that DNA evidence would have exonerated the accused was far-fetched and entirely speculative, since this evidence was not before the court. The lack of DNA evidence would at most be a neutral factor.

The accused falsely claimed that the victim was not allowed to eat in the auditorium

The accused testified that he questioned the victim twice on why she was bringing food into the auditorium but received no reply. This was the first question he asked since the victim was not allowed to eat her lunch there. The victim denied that he asked such a question.

The accused’s assertion that the victim was not allowed to eat in the auditorium was roundly contradicted by the other staff members of the home who were in management positions. These included the Executive Director, the Head of Human Resources and the victim’s Head of Department. They testified that the victim was allowed to eat her lunch in the auditorium and was in fact, expected to eat there due to covid measures.

Chian, the Executive Director, testified that before covid, eating at workplaces was not allowed. Due to covid, staff were allowed to bring food from the pantry to their workstations to eat. However, they had to maintain cleanliness. Constance, the Head of Human Resources, testified that staff were expected to eat at their workstations because of the covid measures and were allowed to eat in the auditorium because of safe-distancing. The Head of the Department of Physiotherapy, Gladys Joy Prudence Guiab (PW5) (“Gladys”), who was the victim’s Head of Department, testified that as at February 2023, covid restrictions were still in place. As part of the covid measures, the victim was expected to eat her lunch at her workstation in the auditorium and do her paperwork there.

The accused’s claim that the victim was not allowed to eat in the auditorium was thus patently untrue. Since she was allowed to eat there, there was no basis for him to raise the issue with her and his claim that he did so was illogical. Further, the first time he raised this issue was in court, which indicated that his claim was an afterthought.

The accused failed to mention the issue of eating in the auditorium in his initial statement to IO Dickson, which was recorded on 28 February 2023 (Exhibit P13). This statement was made voluntarily and was admitted without challenge. The accused affirmed that the contents of Exhibit P13 were true and correct after it was read back to him and signed the statement. No mention of this issue was made in his cautioned statements to the police (Exhibits D1 and D2).

The accused also failed to mention the issue of eating in the auditorium in his report to the home (Exhibit P5). Instead of stating that he questioned the victim about bringing food into the auditorium, he reported that when he saw that her hands were full of food, he helped her by holding the door open:-

… There [name of victim] (PT Therapist) appeared in front of me with 2 hands full of food. As in helping manner I held the door for her to enter the auditorium.

The accused’s claim that he confronted the victim about bringing food to the auditorium was, in all likelihood, false. It was doubtful that the conversation with the victim occurred as he alleged. Instead, I accepted the victim’s evidence that he did not ask her about the issue of food.

The accused falsely claimed that the victim had been formally warned about not turning off the aircons

Summary of the accused’s allegations on why the victim framed him

The accused claimed that he complained three times during Quality Assurance (“QAT”) meetings that the victim did not turn off the aircons when they were not needed i.e. on 20 July 2022, October 2022, and in January 2023. According to him, Chian told Gladys and another Head of Department Mary to take action. They reported at a QAT meeting that they had warned the staff.

The accused professed that after the third complaint, he realised that the victim “did not speak to me well.” She ignored him and he “could sense a form of anger”. He also claimed that the standard operating procedure (“SOP”) was that for the first time, a verbal warning would be given. For the second time, a written warning would be issued. For the third time, the staff’s performance bonus would be affected. Based on the SOP, if a verbal warning was given, a formal note will be made.

The accused also claimed that the victim made allegations against him because “As far as I know, I think it is because she was going to get her third warning with regards to the air-con.” The implication was that based on the purported SOP, the victim’s performance bonus would be affected and she made a false report against him.

The accused’s evidence was not clear on whether the purported third warning was related to his third complaint in January 2023, or that she would receive a third warning once he reported her for not turning off the aircons on 27 February 2023. Whichever the case, I found his allegation to be false for the reasons stated below.

The accused embellished his evidence relating to the aircons

The accused’s evidence was that after he asked the victim why she was bringing food to the auditorium, he asked her about why the aircons were on. The victim did not respond but kept repeating “I miss my country” as she walked towards her desk. The victim denied that he had asked her about the aircons.

In my view, the accused had embellished his evidence in court. In his statement to the police (Exhibit P13), when he was asked whether he spoke to the victim on 27 February 2023, he replied, inter alia:-

… We then spoke to each other and I told her that she did not off the aircon when she left the auditorium. She said that she went to the pantry earlier…

This was his earliest narration of what had occurred. By this version, the victim did reply to him and did not ignore him as he alleged in court. As will be seen below, the victim was not required to turn off the aircons when she went to the pantry to collect her food. By the account in Exhibit P13, the victim responded to the accused and gave her reason for not turning off the aircons i.e. she went to the pantry.

When he submitted his report (Exhibit D5) to the home a few days later, he stated that when he held the door open for the victim to enter the auditorium:-

At the same time I asked her why the Aircon is on when nobody was around. Instead of answering my question, she spoke about herself mentioning she just returned from Philippines. She then also asked about my aunt. After hearing about her Philippines trip and answering her about my aunt, I left the place.

His account evolved as he claimed that the victim did not answer his question as to why the aircon was on. It was inconsistent with his version of events in Exhibit P13, where the victim responded by stating that she had gone to the pantry.

In court, he embellished his account further. He claimed that when he asked the victim about why the aircons were on, the victim did not reply, but kept repeating, “I miss my country”.

In view of these disparate accounts of what occurred, his evidence in court could not be relied on. Further, there was no good reason for him to question the victim about the use of her aircons, since she had just gone to the pantry to get her lunch.

There was no credible reason for the accused to confront the victim about the use of aircons

Gladys testified that if a person were to leave the auditorium for a while, such as to go to the toilet or get food from the pantry, it would not be necessary to turn off the aircons. Based on this, even if the victim had left the aircons on, there would have been nothing wrong.

Since the victim was carrying her food, the accused must have known that she had gone to the pantry to collect her lunch. She was allowed to leave the aircons on when she did so, and there would have been no reason for the accused to confront her. The victim’s assertion that the accused did not ask her about the aircons was plausible, since there was no good reason for the accused to do so.

By the accused’s own account, he soon forgot about the issue of the aircons

Even if the accused did ask the victim about the aircons, he testified that he forgot about the issue when they started to talk about his aunt and other matters. His evidence was not to the effect that he threatened to report the victim for not turning off the aircons. Further, by his account, things ended amicably in the auditorium, with the victim asking him to send her regards to his aunt. There was no reason for the victim to want to frame him, and the accused’s claim that she did so was implausible.

The accused’s claim that the victim received warnings for not turning off the aircons was fabricated

The accused’s claim that the victim had received formal warnings about not turning off the aircons (with the implication that her performance bonus would be affected) was also false. This issue was not put to any of the prosecution witnesses, nor was his evidence relating to the purported SOP. To the contrary, the victim did not receive even a single warning. As the victim’s Head of Department, Gladys would know if formal warnings had been issued to the victim.

Gladys testified that the accused complained once that the victim did not turn off the aircons. She then approached the victim to be mindful about turning off aircons when they were not in use. Gladys also testified that the victim did not express any unhappiness towards the accused after she was told this. Further, if the victim did not comply with her advice, she would be reminded again until she got it. This gentle approach was consistent with Chian’s evidence. He stated that he thought that everyone could “follow” [the improvements in electricity usage]. If not, his mission would be “…to keep on reminding, reminding on this…”

Gladys and Chian’s evidence contradicted the accused’s false allegation that formal warnings had been issued to the victim. Any implication that her performance bonus would be affected due to the warnings was also untrue, and his claim that the victim framed him because of this issue was baseless.

The accused made wild and unsubstantiated allegations against the victim and prosecution witnesses

The defence made several allegations, assertions and insinuations against the victim and the prosecution witnesses. These included:-

(a) Chian, Constance and the victim conspired to frame him. In court, the accused added Lucas to the list of co-conspirators after hearing his testimony.

(b) There were financial irregularities in the home. Chian, Constance and Laurence had conspired and colluded in this respect.

(c) The home tried to let go of him many times. Constance tried to take him out of the company many times. He believed that “they” were using the victim’s complaint to get him out of the home.

(d) The victim was instructed by certain individuals in the home to make a report against him and was being coached by them.

(e) The defence insinuated that there was an improper relationship between the victim and Chian. It was put that if there were any disagreements with the victim, Chian would get very upset. Chian would then sack that person or try to get rid of that person.

There was not a shred of evidence to support these allegations. They were wholly unmeritorious and even scandalous. While Defence Counsel rightly chose not to rely on these allegations in his closing submissions, they have been set out to demonstrate the scattergun approach adopted by the accused to smear the victim and prosecution witnesses, when none of them had a reason to lie about what had occurred. This was no more than a desperate attempt to discredit the victim and the prosecution witnesses and deflect attention from the lack of substance in his defence and his own wrongdoing.

Conclusion and finding of guilt

Based on the totality of the evidence, I was satisfied that the victim’s account was unusually convincing. She was a truthful witness. I was prepared to rely on her uncorroborated evidence alone, which contained the ring of truth. On the other hand, the accused’s testimony contained falsehoods, and he embellished material aspects of his evidence. I disbelieved his evidence and found him to be a witness who lacked credibility.

Having considered the totality of the evidence, I found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was therefore found guilty and convicted on both charges.

The pre-dominant sentencing consideration would be deterrence.

The prosecution sought a sentence of 10 to 12 months’ imprisonment for the first charge and two to three months’ imprisonment for the second charge. The defence submitted for a sentence of six to seven months’ imprisonment for the first charge and two months’ imprisonment for the second charge.

The applicable sentencing approach for offences under s 354(1) of the Penal Code was set out in Kunasekaran. Chan, J adopted the two-step sentencing bands approach laid down by the Court of Appeal in Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449. In that case, the Court of Appeal summarized the approach as follows (at [39]):-

In determining which of the three sentencing bands a case would fall under, the offence-specific factors identified in GBR v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 296 (“GBR”) would be relevant. These factors are:-

(a) The degree of sexual exploitation. This includes considerations of the part of the victim’s body the accused touched, how the accused touched the victim, and the duration of the outrage of modesty.

(b) The circumstances of the offence. These include considerations of: (A) the presence of premeditation; (B) the use of force or violence; (C) the abuse of a position of trust; (D) the use of deception; (E) the presence of other aggravating acts accompanying the outrage of modesty; and (F) the exploitation of a vulnerable victim.

(c) The harm caused to the victim, whether physical or psychological, which would usually be set out in a victim impact statement.

Chan, J set out the ranges of sentence for each of the three sentencing bands. These were based on the prescribed punishment at that time, which then carried a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. The maximum term of imprisonment has now been increased to three years, and the sentencing ranges set out in Kunasekaran should be modified to reflect this uplift and utilize the entire range of the prescribed punishment.

Based on the offence-specific factors for offences under s 354(1), a summary of the description of the sentencing factors, the original and the modified sentencing ranges is set out below:-

The parties agreed that the first charge would fall under Band 2 and that the second charge would fall under Band 1.

For the first charge, the accused grabbed the victim’s waist from behind and squeezed her breast. There was some measure of restraint and the victim had to struggle to break free. She was traumatised and suffered from insomnia and nightmares. She had to undergo counselling and remained traumatised when she gave evidence in court.

The offending in the first charge would fall under Band 2, where the sentencing range would be 7.5 to 22.5 months’ imprisonment. The indicative starting point would be at the lower end of the range, since the private parts of the victim were intruded but there was no skin-on-skin contact. I assessed the indicative starting point to be nine months’ imprisonment.

As for the second step of the sentencing framework, the accused had no antecedents, but he was unremorseful and had put the victim through the trauma of trial. Nonetheless, in my assessment, there were no significant offender-specific aggravating or mitigating factors to suggest that the indicative starting point should be adjusted. The accused was thus sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

For the second charge, the accused attempted to kiss the victim on her lips. If the offence had been completed, this would have fallen under Band 1 of Kunasekaran. I assessed the appropriate starting point to be one month’s imprisonment, since there was no contact with the victim’s lips, she was wearing a mask which offered her a measure of protection, and as the offence was not completed. There was no need to make adjustments to this starting point. The accused was therefore sentenced to one month’s imprisonment.

As the offences occurred in the same transaction, the sentences would run concurrently, so that the aggregate sentence would be nine months’ imprisonment. The sentence imposed was proportional to the accused’s level of offending and is not manifestly excessive.

Tan Jen TseDistrict Judge

DPP Cheronne Lim for the Public Prosecutor;

M. Lukshumayer (Lukshumayer Law Corporation) for the Accused