KESAVAN CHANDIRAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 25 consider?

The judgment refers to COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 25 High Court (General Division) 1 February 2023 HC/MA 9195/2022/01 11 min read

12 cases cited

Outcome

Appeal allowed

I thus allow the appeal in part in that the sentence of three strokes of the cane is reduced to one stroke of the cane.

Source: [2023] SGHC 25, High Court (General Division), decided 1 February 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	1 February 2023
Judge	Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Kalco Law LLC, Ng Cho Yang, Justin, Nicolle Ng Hui Min, Yang Ziliang

Source: [2023] SGHC 25, High Court (General Division), decided 1 February 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Kalco Law LLC Firm Ng Cho Yang, Justin Counsel Appellant Nicolle Ng Hui Min Counsel Respondent Yang Ziliang Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Kesavan Chandiran Appellant

Case Significance

Kesavan Chandiran v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 25 was an ex tempore judgment delivered by Vincent Hoong J in the General Division of the High Court on 1 February 2023, in Magistrate's Appeal No 9195 of 2022/01. The appellant, Kesavan Chandiran, had pleaded guilty on 22 September 2022 to one charge under s 146 of the Penal Code punishable under s 147, with a further charge under the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020 taken into consideration. The judgment records that on 4 August 2019 the appellant and 17 other co-accused persons attacked five victims at a club after a dispute between two groups, using pitchers, cups, glass bottles and tables, causing injuries including lacerations requiring surgical intervention. Below, the Prosecution had sought 18 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane, citing Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 for a rioting range of 18 to 36 months and three to 12 strokes.

[2023] SGHC 25 explained

KESAVAN CHANDIRAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 25) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 1 February 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 25 about?

KESAVAN CHANDIRAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 25) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 25 consider?

The judgment refers to COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Kesavan Chandiran pleaded guilty to one rioting charge under s 146 punishable under s 147 of the Penal Code, arising from an attack by him and 17 co-accused on five victims at a club, and was sentenced by the District Judge to 17 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. On appeal he challenged only the number of strokes as manifestly excessive, relying on parity with a younger co-offender. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the caning from three strokes to one stroke while affirming the 17-month imprisonment term.

What was the charge in Kesavan Chandiran v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 25?

The appellant pleaded guilty on 22 September 2022 to one rioting charge under s 146 of the Penal Code punishable under s 147, arising from a 4 August 2019 attack on five victims at a club by the appellant and 17 co-accused persons.

What sentence had the Prosecution sought below in this rioting appeal ([2023] SGHC 25)?

In the court below the Prosecution sought 18 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane, citing Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33, which noted a rioting range of 18 to 36 months and three to 12 strokes.