PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan

Q: Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 231 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] SGHC 231 High Court (General Division) 24 November 2025 HC/CC 38/2025 14 min read

15 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	24 November 2025
Judge	Valerie Thean
Charges / claim	Criminal Law
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, M/s Ramesh Tiwary, Ashley Chin Sze-En, Ivan Chua Boon Chwee, Ramesh Chandr Tiwary

Source: [2025] SGHC 231, High Court (General Division), decided 24 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 Appellant Ivan Chua Boon Chwee Counsel Appellant Ramesh Chandr Tiwary Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Appellant Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan Defendant

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC 231 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 24 November 2025 concerning Criminal Law, specifically addressing offences. The judgment was delivered by Valerie Thean. The case was brought by Public Prosecutor (appellant) against Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Attorney-General's Chambers and M/s Ramesh Tiwary. The judgment cites 15 cases and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code.

[2025] SGHC 231 explained

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan ([2025] SGHC 231) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 24 November 2025. 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 [2025] SGHC 231 about?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan ([2025] SGHC 231) 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 231 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] SGHC 231 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 219, [2025] SGHC 100, and [2024] SGHC 109. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Following conviction for rape of the complainant who was unconscious in her apartment after a night out, the accused was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. The court applied the Terence Ng sentencing framework, placing the case in Band 2 due to offence-specific aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, premeditation in stalking the victim for 40 minutes, and the group sexual assault, and also ordered $18,524.12 in compensation for the victim's therapy and medical expenses.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC 231?

[2025] SGHC 231 (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 24 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 231)?

The appellant in [2025] SGHC 231 was Public Prosecutor, and the respondent was Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan. Legal representation included Attorney-General's Chambers and M/s Ramesh Tiwary. The case was decided on 24 November 2025 in the High Court (General Division).