PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Ramalingam Selvasekaran
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Aidan Xu |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, David Khoo Kim Leng, Kelly Ng Wei Qi, Susanna Abigail Yim |
Source: [2025] SGHC 262, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHC 262 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 29 December 2025 concerning Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing offences, sentencing, and statements. The judgment was delivered by Aidan Xu. The case was brought by Public Prosecutor (plaintiff) against Ramalingam Selvasekaran (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 15 cases (14 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Penal Code.
[2025] SGHC 262 explained
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Ramalingam Selvasekaran ([2025] SGHC 262) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 29 December 2025. It is categorised under Criminal Law and 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 [2025] SGHC 262 about?
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Ramalingam Selvasekaran ([2025] SGHC 262) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Offences — Rape”, “Criminal Law — Offences — Outrage of modesty”, “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Statements — Admissibility”, 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 262 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.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2025] SGHC 262 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGCA 38, [2025] SGHC 140, and [2025] SGHC 38. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The accused was convicted after trial of two charges of outrage of modesty and one charge of rape by penile-oral penetration against a victim under 14 years old who had come to his shop to buy ice cream. The court sentenced him to 14 years, three months and two weeks' imprisonment, including imprisonment in lieu of caning due to his age of 58, after finding the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
What was decided in [2025] SGHC 262?
[2025] SGHC 262 (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Ramalingam Selvasekaran) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 29 December 2025 addressing Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically offences, sentencing, and statements. The judgment was delivered by Aidan Xu.
Who were the parties in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Ramalingam Selvasekaran ([2025] SGHC 262)?
The plaintiff in [2025] SGHC 262 was Public Prosecutor, and the defendant was Ramalingam Selvasekaran. Legal representation included Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 29 December 2025 in the High Court (General Division).
Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 262?
[2025] SGHC 262 was delivered by Aidan Xu in the High Court (General Division) on 29 December 2025. The case concerned Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC 262 cite?
[2025] SGHC 262 cites 15 prior decisions, including 1 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Penal Code.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (15)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Sentencing outcomes for this offence
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC 262)