PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Raj Kumar S/O Bala
Outcome
ConvictedI convicted the accused of both the First and the Second Charges.
Source: [2024] SGHC 265, High Court (General Division), decided 21 October 2024. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law |
| Outcome | Convicted |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Ramesh Tiwary, Adelle Tai, Muhd Nur Hidayat bin Amir, Poon Yirong Yvonne, Ramesh Chandr Tiwary |
Source: [2024] SGHC 265, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar s/o Bala [2024] SGHC 265 was a Grounds of Decision delivered by Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J in the General Division of the High Court on 21 October 2024 in Criminal Case No 25 of 2023. The accused faced a total of 25 charges and was tried on two of them: one count of outrage of modesty under s 354(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) and one count of rape under s 375(1)(a) punishable under s 375(2) of the Penal Code. Both charges concerned the same complainant, who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged offences in February 2020. The offences were alleged to have occurred between 11.52pm on 21 February 2020 and the early morning of 22 February 2020 at 883 North Bridge Road, Southbank Condominium, Singapore.
[2024] SGHC 265 explained
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Raj Kumar S/O Bala ([2024] SGHC 265) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 21 October 2024. It is categorised under Criminal Law. 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 [2024] SGHC 265 about?
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Raj Kumar S/O Bala ([2024] SGHC 265) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Offences — Rape”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 265 consider?
The judgment refers to Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38), Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The accused faced a total of 25 charges and was tried on two of them: one count of outrage of modesty under s 354(1) of the Penal Code and one count of rape under s 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code, both concerning the same complainant who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged offences in February 2020; a third charge under the Children and Young Persons Act was also proceeded on. The matter concerned whether the prosecution had proved the charges relating to the complainant. The court imposed a global sentence of 13 years and four weeks' imprisonment and nine strokes of the cane, ordering the sentences for the rape and the Children and Young Persons Act offence to run consecutively and the outrage of modesty sentence to run concurrently.
What charges were tried in Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar s/o Bala [2024] SGHC 265?
Of 25 charges the accused faced, two were tried before Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J: one count of outrage of modesty under s 354(1) of the Penal Code and one count of rape under s 375(1)(a) punishable under s 375(2). Both concerned the same 17-year-old complainant.
When and where did the alleged offences in Raj Kumar s/o Bala take place ([2024] SGHC 265)?
The alleged offences were said to have occurred sometime between 11.52pm on 21 February 2020 and the early morning of 22 February 2020 at 883 North Bridge Road, Southbank Condominium, Singapore. The complainant was 17 years old at the time.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (22)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Sentencing outcomes for this offence
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 265)