Public Prosecutor v Ramalingam Ravinthran

Kan Ting Chiu J:

[1] The accused was prosecuted on two charges of trafficking in cannabis and cannabis mixture that he:

[1] Charge

on the 13 day of July 2006 at about 5.40 p.m., in a motorcar bearing registration number SBR 4484S along Pioneer Road, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in [his] possession for the purpose of trafficking eight blocks containing 5560.1 grams of vegetable matter which was analysed and found to be cannabis, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and [he has] thereby committed an offence under section 5(1) (a) read with section 5(2) and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

[2] Charge

on the 13 day of July 2006 at about 5.40 p.m., in a motorcar bearing registration number SBR 4484S along Pioneer Road, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in [his] possession for the purpose of trafficking eight blocks containing 2078.3 grams of fragmented vegetable matter which was analysed and found to contain tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and [he has] thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

[2] The two charges arose in the same transaction. Eight blocks of vegetable material wrapped in aluminium foil were recovered from the accused’s car when he was arrested. When the eight blocks were analysed, they were found to contain cannabis and cannabis mixture. This gave rise to two charges because cannabis and cannabis mixture are treated as distinct drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Act”).

[3] Officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) had kept the accused on surveillance on the date of his arrest on 13 July 2006. He was observed to have driven his car SBR 4484 (“the car”) into the compound of Sri Arasakesari Sivan Temple (“the temple”) along Sungei Kadut Avenue at about 5.15 pm. The accused parked the car and went out of it. He then met up with another man, Sundar Arujunan (“Sundar”) in the compound. Sundar was carrying a red and blue bag (“the bag”). Sundar placed the bag into the back seat of the car. The accused and Sundar then went into the car, with the accused driving and Sundar in the front passenger’s seat. He drove the car out of the temple compound and proceeded to Woodlands Road where Sundar alighted, leaving the bag in the car.

[4] The CNB officers continued to keep surveillance on the accused’s car. They trailed the car as it made its way to Kranji Expressway, Sungei Tengah Road, Bricklands Road, KJE, Pioneer Road North, Jurong West Streets 91, 92 and 93, Upper Jurong Road, Pioneer Road North, Pioneer Circle and Pioneer Road where the journey ended with the arrest of the accused.

[5] The route taken by the accused showed that he was driving around in no particular direction. The officers noted in their pocket books after the arrest that the accused was driving at a high speed, that he drove through two red traffic lights and made two turns around Pioneer Circle.

[6] After his arrest, several statements which were recorded from the accused by different officers were admitted into evidence without objection.

[7] The first statement was recorded by Senior Staff Sgt David Ng (“SSSgt Ng”) at about 6.20 pm on the day of the arrest, after the accused, the car and the bag were taken from the scene of arrest to a trailer park along Jurong Road. This statement was recorded with another officer, Sgt Chelliah Vijay, acting as Tamil interpreter.

[8] The accused did not dispute the admissibility of this statement which consisted of eight questions and answers:

and the accused signed on every page of the pocket book in which the statement was recorded and also against the corrections to the statement and also at the concluding portion that stated that the statement was interpreted to him and that he confirmed it to be true.

[9] The second statement recorded from the accused was his cautioned statement recorded on 18 July 2006 by the investigating officer of the case, DSP Sng Chern Hong with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter. In this statement where he responded to a charge of trafficking the vegetable material in the bag, he stated:

(The person referred to as ‘Rajoo’ is Sundar, as Sundar was known to the accused by that name, and the person referred to as “Ah Bang” is also referred to in other statements as “Abang”.)

[10] An investigation statement was recorded from him by the investigating officer, again with Tamil interpretation on 19 July 2006. In this statement, the accused mentioned two persons by the names Anand and Kumar, whom he had met in Malaysia, who had supplied workers for his projects in Malaysia. He became friendly with them and had them in drinking sessions in Johor starting in April/May 2006.

[11] In paras 19 and 20 of the statement, he recounted that:

[12] He then went on to narrate two occasions on which he had helped Kumar. In para 21 of the statement, he recalled that:

and when the recording of the statement resumed on the afternoon of 20 July 2006, he stated in the continuing statement that:

[13] He then went on to describe the second occasion on which Kumar sought his assistance:

[14] His narration carried on with the continuation of the statement in the evening where he added:

[15] In this statement, the accused also referred to the first statement recorded from him on the day of arrest at the trailer park. He said:

and then he went on to explain the presence of the word ‘grass’ in the statement:

and then he amended that in his further statement of 7 August 2006 and said:

[16] The prosecutor wanted to rely on Sundar’s evidence to show that the accused knew what was in the bag. Sundar was a friend of the accused whom he called Ravi, and the accused knew him as Rajoo.

[17] Sundar was arrested by CNB officers after he parted company with the accused. After his arrest, he was charged with two charges of trafficking in cannabis and cannabis mixture in the bag (both quantified at just below the threshold levels at which the death penalty applies). He pleaded guilty to both charges and had been sentenced to concurrent sentences of twenty years imprisonment by the time he became a witness in the accused’s trial.

[18] Statements were taken from him before and after his conviction. His evidence covered many areas, including common friend he had with the accused by the name “Sasi”, an occasion prior to 13 July 2006 when he had handed a bag to the accused. However, it was his evidence on the accused’s knowledge of the contents of the bag he brought to the car on 13 July 2006 that was most important to the trial of the accused.

[19] The prosecutor questioned Sundar on the exchange he had with the accused in the latter’s car after they left the temple and before he got off the car. The use of the term kanja payal (spelt with some variations in the trial transcripts), which means “miser” in Tamil came up for reasons that will be discussed later. Sundar’s evidence was that the accused had called him a kanja payal. According to Sundar this happened when the accused offered to buy Sundar a meal, and when he did not accept the offer, the accused asked Sundar to buy him a meal instead, but Sundar said that he did not have the money for that.

[20] During cross-examination Sundar agreed with the prosecutor that:

and it also transpired that that was not the first occasion the term was used, as the continued examination went on to show:

[21] The prosecutor then reminded Sundar that he had made statements between 13 and 20 July 2006. Sundar confirmed that he was truthful when he made four statements. He was asked if the statements would help him recall the conversation he had with the accused in the car on 13 July 2006. When Sundar replied that the statements would help him remember, Sundar was referred to two of his statements of 17 July 2006 and 20 July 2006, particularly to paras 37 and 52 of the respective statements in accordance to s 161 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97 Rev Ed 1997) (“Evidence Act”). However, after he was referred to the statements, Sundar’s evidence was that he and the accused did not have any conversation about the contents of the bag.

[22] The prosecutor then took steps to prove that Sundar had given inconsistent accounts of the conversation in his statements. He began by applying for leave under s 156 of the Evidence Act to cross-examine Sundar and when leave was granted, he proceeded to impeach Sundar’s credit on four statements Sundar made on 16, 17, 18 and 20 July 2006 and the statement of facts he admitted to when he pleaded guilty to the two charges against him.

[23] The prosecutor’s intention was to show that there was a conversation between the accused and Sundar in the car about the contents of the bag. However, of the four statements and the statement of facts, only the statements of 17 July 2006 and 20 July 2006 referred to a conversation about the contents of the bag relating to the accused’s knowledge of the contents of the bag. The other statements showed inconsistencies and contradictions in Sundar’s evidence, but not on the accused’s knowledge of the contents of the bag. For this reason, I will refer to the two relevant statements and not the others.

[24] Sundar confirmed by his signature that the statements were given voluntarily and had been read back to him. In respect to the statement of 17 July 2006, Sundar’s attention was drawn to para 37 therein where he had stated:

[25] When the prosecutor asked Sundar if he said this when he made that statement, he replied:

[26] Sundar was then referred to his statement of 20 July 2006 where he had stated in para 52:

[27] Sundar confirmed that in this statement he answered truthfully the questions he was asked and that it was read back to him, except the part referring to the ganja, and he maintained that he had not mentioned ganja.

[28] In the face of Sundar’s assertion that he had not mentioned ganja in the statements of 17 and 20 July 2006, the prosecutor referred to another statement which Sundar made on 17 July 2007, after his own conviction, in preparation for the present case against the accused.

[29] Sundar confirmed that he made the statement of 17 July 2007 voluntarily. In that statement, he referred to the conversation he had in the car with the accused on 13 July 2006:

[30] When it was pointed out to him that by his statement he had acknowledged that he had mentioned ganja, albeit by mistake because he misheard kanja payal for ganja, he conceded:

and:

[31] Counsel for the accused then cross-examined Sundar, with the intention of getting his admission that he was not mistaken in his statement about the accused telling him that the bag contained ganja, but was telling a deliberate lie.

[32] The exchange started quite promisingly –

[33] But when counsel pressed on, Sundar began to disagree with him, as shown in the following questions and answers:

[34] He had only primary school education, but by his efforts he became engaged in business in marine construction and piling in Malaysia and also managed a pub in Singapore. In the course of his work, he dealt with labour suppliers in Malaysia, including two named Anand and Kumar. When he got to know Anand and Kumar better, they visited night clubs together where they had drinks and the company of ladies.

[35] In May or June 2006, Kumar asked him to help in transporting a bag from the Sri Arasakesari Sivan Temple to a canteen in Sungei Kadut. Kumar assured him that there would be no drugs or explosives in the bag.

[36] He followed the instructions and drove his car to the temple and went for prayers. When he returned to his car, there was a bag there, and he drove his car and parked it outside a canteen in Sungei Kadut, and went in for his meal. When he returned from his meal, the bag was removed from his car. Kumar telephoned him to assure him that the bag was collected, and told him that there were safety boots in the bag.

[37] Then the accused referred to the events of 13 July 2006. That morning Kumar’s foreman, Tamby telephoned him and informed him that Kumar or Rajoo (ie, Sundar, whom the accused knew as Rajoo) would be calling him. Subsequently, Kumar called him and instructed him to be at the temple at 3.30pm. Ten minutes later, Sundar also called and confirmed that he would be at the temple at 3.30 pm.

[38] The accused went to the temple and found the gate closed, and Sundar was not there. He telephoned Sundar, who told him to wait for him. After speaking to Sundar, the accused received a call from a person he was unable to identify at that time. (During cross-examination, the accused identified Abang to be the person who telephoned him.) That person told him that he was to go to a canteen at Sungei Kadut. He went to the canteen (which was established at the trial to be the Hawkerway Food Court situated along Sungei Kadut Way). In the toilet of the food court, he met a person he referred to as Abang. Abang asked him if the books had arrived, and he replied in the negative. Abang then handed to him a stack of money and told him that it was workers’ money and that he was to give it to the person who would be bringing the book.

[39] After he received the money from Abang, he received a call from Sundar that he would be at the temple after 5 o’clock. At about 5.00 pm. the accused returned to the temple. At this time, the gates were open and he drove his car into the temple compound. He parked his car and saw Sundar approaching, carrying a bag. Sundar went into the front passenger seat and placed the bag in the back seat.

[40] The accused did not know what was in the bag and thought that it may be some industrial articles or a book. He also thought that Sundar was going with him to deliver the bag. He gave the money he received from Abang to Sundar, and told him that it was money for workers, and then they drove out of the temple compound. When they were at Bukit Timah Road, Sundar suddenly asked him to stop at a bus stop. When he stopped there, Sundar got off, leaving the bag in the car. He asked Sundar about it, and Sundar told him that he or Abang will be calling him.

[41] At that time, the accused realised that there was a car in front and another car at the rear of his car, and he was suspicious about these cars. He drove off and kept observation on them. He drove for about 20 minutes with the cars trailing him. When he stopped at a traffic light junction along Pioneer Road, the other cars blocked his car and persons (the CNB officers) went to his car and arrested him.

[42] After he was arrested, he was taken to a trailer park nearby, and was made to sit on the side of the road. He said that at the trailer park, he heard some CNB officers mention “grass” and “glass” in relation to the contents of the bag and he knew that “grass” referred to ganja.

[43] The prosecutor cross-examined the accused at some length. The accused confirmed that he had asked Sundar to buy him a meal, and had called Sundar a kanjan or kanjappaya (a miser) when Sundar declined. He had said that as a joke, and they would both laugh over it.

[44] The prosecutor also questioned him on the statement he made at the trailer park. The accused clarified that he heard the officers talking, “they were talking among themselves, and I overheard the word ‘grass’”, and when his statement was recorded, he was asked in Tamil what the content of the bag was and he replied that it was “grass”.

[45] At the conclusion of the trial, the evidence was :

[46] The critical issue of the case was whether the accused knew that the bag contained cannabis and cannabis mixture.

[47] The direct evidence that the accused knew that the bag contained ganja was that:

The evidence relating to both statements should be examined with care to determine the weight to be placed on this evidence.

[48] The heart of the accused’s evidence in court was that he did not know the contents of the eight wrapped blocks in the bag, and he said “grass” only because he heard CNB officers say that.

[49] However, he also acknowledged that in his investigation statements, he had alleged that he heard more than “grass”, and this has been quoted in para 15 of this judgment. In short, he had stated in para 45 of his statement of 20 July 2006 that “… I had overheard the officers mentioning the term “glass” or “grass” earlier … I only heard the word “glass” or “grass”. In his subsequent statement of 7 August 2006 he went on to state at para 58 that “… when the officers asked me about the content of the bag, I replied in English ‘glass’ and not ‘grass’.”

[50] Both the accused’s statements of 13 July and 20 July 2006 were recorded in English with Tamil interpretations. The earlier statement was recorded by SSSgt David Ng with Sgt Chelliah Vijay acting as English/Tamil interpreter. Their evidence was that when SSSgt Ng posed the questions to the accused in English, the questions were interpreted into Tamil by Sgt Chelliah. When the accused gave an answer, Sgt Chelliah translated the answer into English. It was also their evidence that when the statement was completed it was read back to the accused in Tamil by Sgt Chelliah and he was given the opportunity to correct it before he signed it.

[51] It is to be noted that the accused’s evidence on the word he used was inconsistent. While he stated in para 58 of his statement of 7 August 2006 that he had said “glass” in English, he said during cross-examination that he actually said “grass” –:

[52] SSSgt David Ng’s evidence was that during the recording of the statement, the accused spoke to the interpreter in Tamil, with only one exception. That was when the accused was asked “What is inside the bag?” he answered “The grass” in English.

[53] SSSgt Ng went on to say:

[54] After listening to SSSgt Ng’s evidence, counsel for the accused obtained a half hour adjournment to take the accused’s instructions on the recording of the statement. When the hearing resumed, counsel stated:

[55] Counsel went on to ask SSSgt Ng:

but it was not put to the witness that what he had described did not take place.

[56] The interpreter Sgt Chelliah Vijay is a CNB officer and is not a certified interpreter. He has attained Tamil qualification up to the AO level, and had obtained a B3 grade. He confirmed that Tamil is his mother tongue, and he uses it at home. He had no problems communicating with the accused during the recording of the statement, and the accused had no trouble understanding him. He confirmed that when the accused was asked about the contents of the bag, he replied in English that it was grass, and that SSSgt Ng had asked him to spell “glass” and “grass” to the accused for his verification and the accused confirmed it was “grass”, by spelling it.

[57] Defence counsel expressed some scepticism over this part of his evidence, as shown in this exchange in cross-examination:

As in the case of SSSgt Ng, it was not put it to him that his evidence was untruthful.

[58] When I review the evidence, I see no reason for rejecting the evidence of SSSgt Ng and Sgt Chelliah. On the other hand, the accused’s evidence was less satisfactory because:

[59] The accused was trying hard to deny that he gave the answer recorded. However, his account of the circumstances of the recording of the answer was undermined by the inconsistencies, contradictions and the lack of following up that I have referred to in sub-paras (iv) and (v) above. I find as a fact that the accused had answered “grass” in English (which he knew to refer to ganja) and that he had not said “glass”.

[60] The evidence came out through a circuitous route. It started with the prosecutor asking Sundar about the conversation between him and the accused when they were in the car. After a stage, the prosecutor applied for and obtained leave to cross-examine Sundar on the basis that he was a hostile witness, and followed up by applying to impeach his credit. After the impeachment exercise, Sundar continued to give evidence on his conversation. All this has been recounted under “The evidence of Sundar”, and I shall not repeat that.

[61] I rejected Sundar’s evidence that the accused had said kanja payal to him rather than ganja, and I impeached his credit because:

[62] Sundar’s evidence was clearly inconsistent with and contradictory to his statement of 17 July 2006, and consequently, the statement came within the operation of s 147(3) of the Evidence Act that:

and the statement was admissible evidence that the accused told him that there was ganja in the bag in the way that direct oral evidence by Sundar would be admissible.

[63] While s 147(3) renders the statement admissible in evidence, the weight to be accorded to the statement has to be determined. When para 17 of the statement of 17 July 2006 becomes admissible as though it was the direct oral evidence of Sundar, it does not mean that para 17 must be regarded as truthful. Admissibility of any evidence and the weight to be accorded to the evidence are separate issues. In a situation where s 147(3) operates, a court must take into account the fact that the witness’ statement is inconsistent with or contradicted by his oral evidence. In such a situation, it is open to the court to find:

[64] I find that Sundar had said that the accused had told him that the bag contained ganja, and that he was not mistaken or deliberately lying when he made the statement. Consequently, I find that Sundar’s statement that the accused told him the bag contained ganja is admissible, and is truthful.

[65] The accused was in possession of the bag containing the cannabis and the cannabis mixture. The prosecution had proved that after his arrest, he acknowledged that the bag contained ganja, and that he had also told Sundar that the bag contained ganja, a term which covers cannabis and cannabis mixture.

[66] The prosecutor argued that independently of the accused’s admission and Sundar’s evidence, the accused must be taken to have knowledge of the contents of the bag because he had deliberately kept a blind eye to that, and that was the effect of actual knowledge, as explained in Tan Kiam Peng v PP [2008] 1 SLR 1.

[67] The prosecutor referred to para 41 of the accused’s statement of 20 July 2006 where he stated:

I drove off and headed for Jurong with the intention to go to my workplace then. Afterwhich I would wait for ‘Abang’ to call me and arrange for a meeting place to pick up the bag. During this entire time, I did not touch the bag at all. I did not notice whether the bag was locked but I had no intention to see the content inside. I did not want to check the bag as I thought it was better not for me to see. I suspected that something was not right, and the bag might contain something illegal. I had this suspicion because if the content was legal, they would not need to be so discreet. Only then I realized that they were using me.

[68] Although the accused said in court that he had no opportunity to inspect the bag as he was trying to flee from the suspected gangsters and thugs in the cars which trailed him. I reject this explanation because he had not mentioned in that statement. In addition to that, a further statement was recorded from him on 7 August 2006 after the statement of 20 July 2006 was read back and explained to him. In this later statement, he made two clarifications to the statement of 20 July 2006, but he again did not mention that he could not examine the bag because he was fleeing from those persons.

[69] I therefore find that even if the accused did not have actual knowledge of the contents of the bag, his wilful blindness has the same legal effect as actual knowledge.

[70] In view of the quantities of cannabis and cannabis mixture in the bag (which were not disputed), a presumption arose under s 17 of the Act that the accused had those drugs for the purpose of trafficking, as “traffic” being defined in s 2 to be:

(a) to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver or distribute; or

(b) to offer to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a),

and the accused has not rebutted the presumption that the drugs were in his possession for the purpose of trafficking as his case is that he was keeping the bag for Sundar or Abang, ie, that he intended to send or deliver the bag to either of them. With those elements established, the accused had trafficked in the drugs under s 5(2) of the Act:

[71] Consequently, I find the accused guilty and convict him on the two charges that he faces, and I impose the death sentence on him for each charge.

_________________

See pocket books entries P143 of Sgt Chan Jee Yeng, P148 of SI M Subramaniam, P149 of SSgt Fatimahtus Zahra bt Osman and P150 of SSI Tan Yian Chye