Public Prosecutor v Ramalingam Selvasekaran

The accused, Ramalingam Selvasekaran, ran a provision shop. On 28 October 2021 the victim, a girl under 14, came to the shop in her school uniform and was given a free drink; she later returned to buy an ice-cream. According to her evidence, he led her to the back of the shop, hugged her, squeezed her buttocks and kissed her using his tongue; then, in a storage room, he kissed her again, squeezed her buttocks and breasts and rubbed his fingers over her vagina through her clothes, before pushing her down to kneel and forcing his penis into her mouth. She ran home, rinsed her mouth and asked a passer-by, Mr Juma'at, to call the police, and the accused was arrested.

In his early statements to the police the accused admitted hugging and kissing her, exposing himself and her taking his penis in her mouth, but claimed she consented. He later denied any sexual act, said his statements were false and involuntary, and alleged that gangsters, and possibly Mr Juma'at and the police, had set him up. He was tried in the High Court in Criminal Case No 67 of 2024 on two charges of outrage of modesty and one of rape by penile-oral penetration. He appealed against conviction and sentence, and these are the grounds.

1. Whether the victim's evidence was unusually convincing
2. Whether the accused's early statements were voluntary and reliable and corroborated the victim's evidence
3. Whether the accused's defence, including his erectile dysfunction and claims of a set-up by gangsters, raised a reasonable doubt
4. What sentence was appropriate for each charge and in total

The court found the victim's account clear, detailed and internally and externally consistent. Most of the alleged inconsistencies were simply differences from the accused's own version, and her conduct, such as seeking out an English speaker rather than her grandfather, was understandable for a child. A minor difference with Mr Juma'at about who started their conversation was immaterial. A urologist's evidence, which the court accepted, showed that oral penetration remained possible despite the accused's erectile dysfunction. The absence of lift footage, DNA or store CCTV raised no reasonable doubt, as the recorder was haphazardly configured and she had rinsed her mouth.

The statements were voluntary: recordings showed no threat, inducement or oppression from persons in authority, an officer's remark that he should speak properly or be scolded was no threat, and alleged threats by gangsters would not come from persons in authority. They were also reliable, and their details mirrored the victim's account, so they corroborated her evidence; the court gave little weight to their exculpatory parts.

The gangster story was vague, contradictory, unsubstantiated and raised late, and nothing linked Mr Juma'at to any plot.

On sentence, general deterrence and retribution were key. The first charge fell within Band 1 of the GBR v Public Prosecutor [2018] 3 SLR 1048 framework and the second involved invasive touching after moving her to an isolated area. The rape was placed at the bottom of Band 2 of the Terence Ng framework given the force used on a vulnerable child. Additional imprisonment in lieu of caning was imposed for retribution and deterrence.

The High Court convicted the accused on all three charges and sentenced him to 8 months' imprisonment on the first outrage of modesty charge, 12 months and 3 strokes on the second, and 13 years and 12 strokes on the rape charge, with the first and third terms running consecutively. As he was 58, caning could not be imposed, and 7 months and 2 weeks' imprisonment was added in lieu, giving a total of 14 years, 3 months and 2 weeks' imprisonment.