PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan

Q: Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 219 consider?

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

[2025] SGHC 219 High Court (General Division) 6 November 2025 HC/CC 38/2025 66 min read

5 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	6 November 2025
Judge	Valerie Thean
Charges / claim	Criminal Law
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, M/s Ramesh Tiwary, Ashley Chin Sze-En, David Rajeev Menon, Ramesh Chandr Tiwary

Source: [2025] SGHC 219, High Court (General Division), decided 6 November 2025 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Offences — Rape

Practice Areas

Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Valerie Thean Delivered

Counsel (5)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm M/s Ramesh Tiwary Firm Ashley Chin Sze-En Counsel Plaintiff David Rajeev Menon Counsel Plaintiff Ramesh Chandr Tiwary Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Plaintiff Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan Defendant

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC 219 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 6 November 2025 concerning Criminal Law, specifically addressing offences. The judgment was delivered by Valerie Thean. The case was brought by Public Prosecutor (plaintiff) against Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Attorney-General's Chambers and M/s Ramesh Tiwary. The judgment cites 5 cases and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Penal Code. This decision has been cited by 1 subsequent judgment in the dataset.

[2025] SGHC 219 explained

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan ([2025] SGHC 219) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 6 November 2025. It is categorised under 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] SGHC 219 about?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan ([2025] SGHC 219) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2025. 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 [2025] SGHC 219 consider?

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

How influential is [2025] SGHC 219?

Within this corpus, [2025] SGHC 219 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

The accused was charged with rape under s 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code after penetrating the complainant's vagina without her consent in her apartment in the early hours of 31 January 2021, following a night out for her birthday. The key issue was whether the complainant had consented; the court found her testimony credible and convicted the accused, rejecting his claim that the sexual contact was consensual.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC 219?

[2025] SGHC 219 (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 6 November 2025 addressing Criminal Law, specifically offences. The judgment was delivered by Valerie Thean.

Who were the parties in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan ([2025] SGHC 219)?

The plaintiff in [2025] SGHC 219 was Public Prosecutor, and the defendant was Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan. Legal representation included Attorney-General's Chambers and M/s Ramesh Tiwary. The case was decided on 6 November 2025 in the High Court (General Division).