CHJ v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2025] SGCA 38 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2025] SGCA 38 Court of Appeal 8 August 2025 CA/CCA 14/2024 8 min read

1 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

We therefore dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence.

Source: [2025] SGCA 38, Court of Appeal, decided 8 August 2025. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	8 August 2025
Judges	Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Criminal Law
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Anitha & Asoka LLC, Attorney-General's Chambers, Vinit Chhabra Law Corporation, Jane Lim, Jonathan Tan, N K Anitha, Vinit Chhabra

Source: [2025] SGCA 38, Court of Appeal, decided 8 August 2025 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence Criminal Law — Offences — Obstructing the course of justice under s 204A(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) Criminal Law — Offences — Sexual offences — Sexual assault involving penetration under s 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Criminal Law

Judges (3)

Belinda Ang Saw Ean Coram Tay Yong Kwang Delivered Woo Bih Li Coram

Counsel (7)

Anitha & Asoka LLC Firm Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Vinit Chhabra Law Corporation Firm Jane Lim Counsel Respondent Jonathan Tan Counsel Respondent N K Anitha Counsel Appellant Vinit Chhabra Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent CHJ Appellant

Case Significance

[2025] SGCA 38 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 8 August 2025 concerning Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing appeal and offences. The judgment was delivered by Tay Yong Kwang, with Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Woo Bih Li on the coram. The case was brought by CHJ (appellant) against Public Prosecutor (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Anitha & Asoka LLC and Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 1 case and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code. This decision has been cited by 1 subsequent judgment in the dataset.

[2025] SGCA 38 explained

CHJ v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 38) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 8 August 2025. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Criminal Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 [2025] SGCA 38 about?

CHJ v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 38) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence”, “Criminal Law — Offences — Obstructing the course of justice under s 204A(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)”, and “Criminal Law — Offences — Sexual offences — Sexual assault involving penetration under s 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2025] SGCA 38 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2025] SGCA 38 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 240. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2025] SGCA 38?

Within this corpus, [2025] SGCA 38 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

CHJ appealed against his conviction for two charges of sexually assaulting his wife by digital penetration under s 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code and one charge of obstructing the course of justice by pressuring her to withdraw her police report. He was sentenced to a global term of eight years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence, also refusing leave to adduce fresh evidence in the form of divorce proceedings and the complainant's medical records.

What was decided in [2025] SGCA 38?

[2025] SGCA 38 (CHJ v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) is a Court of Appeal decision from 8 August 2025 addressing Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically appeal and offences. The judgment was delivered by Tay Yong Kwang.

Who were the parties in CHJ v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 38)?

The appellant in [2025] SGCA 38 was CHJ, and the respondent was Public Prosecutor. Legal representation included Attorney-General's Chambers and Anitha & Asoka LLC. The case was decided on 8 August 2025 in the Court of Appeal.

Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 38?

[2025] SGCA 38 was delivered by Tay Yong Kwang in the Court of Appeal on 8 August 2025. Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Woo Bih Li also sat on the coram. The case concerned Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGCA 38 cite?

[2025] SGCA 38 cites 1 prior decision. It references Criminal Procedure Code, Penal Code. The decision has itself been cited by 1 subsequent judgment.