PP v Lim Poh Lye: Murder Conviction Upheld for Robbery Resulting in Death

In Public Prosecutor v Lim Poh Lye and Koh Zhan Quan Tony, the Court of Appeal of Singapore overturned the High Court's decision and convicted Lim Poh Lye and Koh Zhan Quan Tony of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The case involved a robbery plot against Bock Thuan Thong, a second-hand car dealer, which resulted in his death. The primary legal issue was whether the respondents had the common intention to cause bodily harm that led to the victim's death during the robbery. The Court of Appeal found that the stabbing was in furtherance of the common intention to rob, thus establishing the respondents' guilt for murder.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed. Respondents convicted of murder.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal of Lim Poh Lye and Koh Zhan Quan Tony, convicting them of murder for a robbery that resulted in death.

1.7 Decision Date

14 July 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Appellant	Government Agency	Appeal Allowed	Won	Jason Chan of Deputy Public Prosecutor Francis Ng of Deputy Public Prosecutor Lawrence Ang of Principal Senior State Counsel
Koh Zhan Quan Tony	Respondent	Individual	Convicted of Murder	Lost	Julian Tay Wei Loong of Lee and Lee Loo Ngan Chor of Lee and Lee
Lim Poh Lye	Respondent	Individual	Convicted of Murder	Lost	Ismail Hamid of Ismail Hamid and Co Alan Moh of Ismail Hamid and Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Lai Kew Chai	Judge	No
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jason Chan	Deputy Public Prosecutor
Francis Ng	Deputy Public Prosecutor
Lawrence Ang	Principal Senior State Counsel
Julian Tay Wei Loong	Lee and Lee
Loo Ngan Chor	Lee and Lee
Ismail Hamid	Ismail Hamid and Co
Alan Moh	Ismail Hamid and Co

4. Facts

The respondents and Ng Kim Soon planned to rob Bock Thuan Thong, a second-hand car dealer.
The plan involved abducting Bock and forcing him to sign cheques of up to $600,000.
A knife would be used to frighten Bock if he proved difficult.
Koh brought two big knives in a sling bag.
The trio met Bock at the Automobile Megamart at Ubi and bundled him into his car.
Bock was stabbed in the legs during the robbery, and one stab wound penetrated a major blood vessel.
The stab wound caused uncontrolled bleeding, leading to Bock's death.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Lim Poh Lye and Another, Cr App 2/2005, [2005] SGCA 31

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2004-03-01	Respondents and Ng Kim Soon planned to rob Bock Thuan Thong.
2004-04-02	Respondents and Ng Kim Soon abducted and robbed Bock Thuan Thong, resulting in his death.
2004-04-05	Lim Poh Lye surrendered to the police.
2004-05-01	Yeo Seok Leng returned to Singapore.
2004-05-20	Koh Zhan Quan Tony surrendered to the Malaysian police.
2004-05-22	Koh Zhan Quan Tony was brought back to Singapore.
2005-07-15	Court of Appeal delivered judgment, convicting the respondents of murder.

7. Legal Issues

Interpretation of Section 300(c) Penal Code
- Outcome: The court clarified the interpretation of Section 300(c), emphasizing that the intention to cause the specific injury is crucial, and the injury must be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Accidental infliction of injury
  - Intention to cause bodily injury
- Related Cases:
  - Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465
  - PP v Visuvanathan [1975–1977] SLR 564
  - Tan Cheow Bock v PP [1991] SLR 293
  - Tan Joo Cheng v PP [1992] 1 SLR 620
  - Tan Chee Wee v PP [2004] 1 SLR 479
  - Tan Chee Hwee v PP [1993] 2 SLR 657
  - Yacob s/o Rusmatullah v PP [1994] SGCA 51
  - Mohd Iskandar bin Mohd Ali v PP [1995] SGCA 86
  - Harjinder Singh v Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 867
  - Mohamed Yasin bin Hussin v PP [1975–1977] SLR 34
Common Intention under Section 34 Penal Code
- Outcome: The court held that the stabbing of the victim was carried out in furtherance of the common intention of the trio to rob him with knives, thus establishing the respondents' guilt for murder under Section 34.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Furtherance of common intention
  - Vicarious liability
- Related Cases:
  - Wong Mimi v PP [1972–1974] SLR 73
  - PP v Neoh Bean Chye [1972–1974] SLR 213
  - Mahbub Shah v Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118
  - Too Yin Sheong v PP [1999] 1 SLR 682
  - Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP [1999] 2 SLR 57

8. Remedies Sought

Conviction for Murder
Death Penalty

9. Cause of Actions

Murder
Robbery

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Homicide
Robbery

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Virsa Singh v State of Punjab	Indian Supreme Court	Yes	AIR 1958 SC 465	India	Cited as the time-honoured pronouncement on Section 300(c) of the Penal Code, outlining the four elements that must be proved to establish murder under this section.
PP v Visuvanathan	High Court	Yes	[1975–1977] SLR 564	Singapore	Cited as a case where the law as enunciated in Virsa Singh was adopted and applied by the courts in Singapore.
Tan Cheow Bock v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] SLR 293	Singapore	Cited as a case where the law as enunciated in Virsa Singh was adopted and applied by the courts in Singapore.
Tan Joo Cheng v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 620	Singapore	Cited as a case where the law as enunciated in Virsa Singh was adopted and applied by the courts in Singapore, but also requiring clarification regarding the intention to cause a particular injury.
Tan Chee Wee v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR 479	Singapore	Cited as a case where the law as enunciated in Virsa Singh was adopted and applied by the courts in Singapore.
Tan Chee Hwee v PP	Court of Appeal	No	[1993] 2 SLR 657	Singapore	Cited to distinguish the intention to do an act involving a specific injury from the intention to cause the specific injury actually inflicted, and to clarify that the resulting fatal neck injury had been accidentally or unintentionally caused.
Yacob s/o Rusmatullah v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] SGCA 51	Singapore	Cited to explain the true determination of the court in Tan Chee Hwee, emphasizing that the injuries at the neck were unintentional.
Mohd Iskandar bin Mohd Ali v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] SGCA 86	Singapore	Cited to further explain that in Tan Chee Hwee there was a reasonable doubt that the two accused there had only intended to tie up the maid and had no intention to cause her any bodily injury at all, much less the injuries that resulted.
Harjinder Singh v Delhi Administration	Indian Supreme Court	No	AIR 1968 SC 867	India	Cited to distinguish the case where the accused had stabbed the victim in the thigh and severed an artery, but the court inferred that the accused did not intend to cause an injury on that particular portion of the thigh.
Mohamed Yasin bin Hussin v PP	Privy Council	No	[1975–1977] SLR 34	Singapore	Cited to show that the prosecution had failed to prove that when the accused sat forcibly on the victim’s chest during the struggle he intended to inflict upon her the kind of bodily injury which, as a matter of scientific fact, was sufficiently grave to cause the death of a normal human being of the victim’s apparent age and build.
Wong Mimi v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1972–1974] SLR 73	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that the prosecution does not have to prove that there exists, between the participants who are charged with an offence read with s 34, a common intention to commit the crime actually committed.
PP v Neoh Bean Chye	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1972–1974] SLR 213	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that the prosecution does not have to prove that there exists, between the participants who are charged with an offence read with s 34, a common intention to commit the crime actually committed.
Mahbub Shah v Emperor	Privy Council	Yes	AIR 1945 PC 118	India	Cited to explain that Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act, and the essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
Too Yin Sheong v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 682	Singapore	Cited to illustrate the application of s 34, where the appellant was a member of a group of three persons whose object was to rob the deceased, and in the course of the robbery, the deceased was strangled to death by one of them.
Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 57	Singapore	Cited to further explain that the participants must have some knowledge that an act may be committed which is consistent with or would be in furtherance of, the common intention.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code	Singapore
Section 300(c) Penal Code	Singapore
Section 34 Penal Code	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Common intention
Section 300(c) Penal Code
Section 34 Penal Code
Bodily injury
Culpable homicide
Stab wound
Robbery
Abduction

15.2 Keywords

Murder
Robbery
Common Intention
Penal Code
Singapore
Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Criminal Law	95
Murder	95
Theft	60
Contract Law	10

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Murder
Robbery
Complicity