SUGUMARAN S/O KANNAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Sugumaran s/o Kannan claimed trial in the District Court to two charges: sexual activity in the presence of a minor under s 376ED(1) of the Penal Code 1871 (the masturbation charge), and sexual assault by penetration under s 376(1)(b) (the SAP charge). The complainant, who was under 16, said the appellant approached him outside an MRT toilet, said the weather made him feel horny and asked if he wanted to jerk off, led him to a shopping mall toilet, masturbated at the adjacent urinal while looking at him, and then in a cubicle bent over and guided the complainant's penis towards his anus.

The District Judge convicted him on both charges and imposed six weeks' imprisonment and seven years and five months' imprisonment, to run concurrently. He appealed against conviction and sentence in HC/MA 9104/2024/01, and in HC/CM 16/2025 applied to admit two statements the complainant gave to the police, which on their face did not mention masturbation, said no penetration was felt, or said only that he thinks the appellant was masturbating.

Issues

1. Whether the complainant's police statements should be admitted as further evidence on appeal
2. Whether the masturbation charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt
3. Whether penetration was proved for the SAP charge
4. Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive

Holding

The High Court dismissed the criminal motion to adduce further evidence and dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence, leaving the aggregate sentence of seven years and five months' imprisonment in place.

Reasoning

Applying the necessity criteria in Soh Meiyun v Public Prosecutor [2014] 3 SLR 299, the statements failed on relevance because they were inadmissible under s 259(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010. No exception had been relied on below, and the provisions of the Evidence Act raised only at the oral hearing required the complainant to be cross-examined or impeached.

Following GII v Public Prosecutor [2025] 3 SLR 578, the court found no reason to disturb the finding that the complainant was credible. His account was internally consistent and showed a clear intent to engage in sexual activity. The appellant's narrow definition of masturbation was contrived, the sexual gratification point had been put to him at trial and could be inferred from his conduct, and CCTV footage and his own police statement corroborated the account. That the complainant did not tell doctors about the masturbation was irrelevant.

On penetration, the appellant's own statements that it went in a bit were highly probative admissions, citing Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2021] 1 SLR 744. The complainant's uncertainty reflected his inexperience, and the absence of medical signs was consistent with partial penetration.

On sentence, the complainant's age properly aggravated the offence (Public Prosecutor v AOM [2011] 3 SLR 1057), his prior sexual experience was irrelevant (Annis bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [2004] 2 SLR(R) 93), and the District Judge correctly applied Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 1015.

From the judgment