Islam Mohammad Khabirul v Public Prosecutor

Islam Mohammad Khabirul, a Bangladeshi worker employed by Vigour Technologies Pte Ltd (VTP), was found lying on the tween deck of a vessel at a shipyard on 1 March 2019. He claimed he had been hit by a bundle of insulation on a staircase and injured, and on 11 April 2019 applied for compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act. The Ministry of Manpower investigated him for making a false claim.

He was charged with fraudulently making a false compensation claim to induce VTP to pay him, and with two counts of making statements to the investigation officer that he knew were false: his account of the accident, and his denial that a co-worker, Nasu, had asked for his yard access card on 28 February 2019 and that he had heard VTP's director, Sengani, tell him not to come to work the next day. After trial he was convicted on all three charges in Public Prosecutor v Islam Mohammad Khabirul [2025] SGMC 8 and sentenced to an aggregate of 13 weeks' imprisonment. In Magistrate's Appeal No 9245 of 2024 he appealed against conviction only, alleging among other things that WhatsApp records and a risk assessment form had been fabricated.

1. Whether Nasu asked the appellant for his access card and the appellant heard Sengani's instruction not to work on 1 March 2019.
2. Whether the appellant attended the morning toolbox meeting and received work instructions.
3. Whether an accident causing injury occurred, and whether all three charges were made out.

The court found no basis for the claim that Sengani edited the WhatsApp records: there was no evidence of motive or of the skill to do so, the appellant had not sought production of her phone, and the challenge to two exhibits was raised only on appeal. Messages sent on 28 February 2019 showed she meant to keep five workers out of the yard before any accident. Nasu's account, though inconsistent in sequence, was corroborated by those messages and the other witnesses. Shah's changed testimony was rightly rejected, and no adverse inference arose from the absence of call records.

Yard records, which the appellant had admitted, showed he entered at 4.43am, far earlier than usual. A supervisor whose credibility was impeached could not displace the evidence that the appellant missed the toolbox meeting, and there was no evidence the attendance form was forged.

The court found the accident was staged. Like Mia Mukles v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 252, he had no reason to be on the vessel. His deliberate lies to the investigator showed consciousness of guilt, his account was inherently improbable, no one saw insulation at the scene, a paramedic described him feigning unconsciousness, and doctors found his pain disproportionate. He therefore knew his claim and statements were false.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, upholding the convictions on all three charges.