Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Rosli: Murder, Provocation, and Penal Code Interpretation

In [2021] SGHC 252, the High Court of Singapore found Mohammad Rosli bin Abdul Rahim guilty of murder under section 300(c) of the Penal Code for the death of Mohammad Roslan bin Zaini. Rosli stabbed Zaini in their shared unit on August 16, 2017. The court, presided over by Justice Dedar Singh Gill, rejected Rosli's defense of grave and sudden provocation, concluding that the elements of murder were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Convict the accused on the charge of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Mohammad Rosli was convicted of murder for stabbing Mohammad Roslan. The court rejected his defense of grave and sudden provocation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
Zhou Yang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Andre Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Yang Ziliang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mohammad Rosli bin Abdul RahimDefenseIndividualConvictionLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Dedar Singh GillJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Zhou YangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Andre ChongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Yang ZiliangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Low Chun YeeKalidass Law Corporation
Goh Peizhi AdelineWithers KhattarWong LLP
Anand NalachandranForte Law LLC
Liu JunyiKalidass Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The accused, Mohammad Rosli, stabbed the deceased, Mohammad Roslan, in the chest with a kitchen knife.
  2. The stabbing occurred at approximately 4.30am on 16 August 2017 in their shared unit.
  3. The deceased ran out of the unit and was found dead on a nearby grass patch.
  4. The accused claimed he consumed seven Nitrazepam pills prior to the attack.
  5. The accused claimed the stabbing was accidental during a fight after the deceased insulted his mother.
  6. The knife had a 17cm blade, and the stab wound was 11-13cm deep, penetrating the heart.
  7. The accused admitted to taking the knife to 'hurt' the deceased.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Rosli bin Abdul Rahim, Criminal Case No 5 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 252

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mohammad Roslan bin Zaini died after being stabbed.
Mohammad Rosli bin Abdul Rahim was arrested.
Clinical Professor Gilbert Lau conducted an autopsy on the deceased.
Criminal Case No 5 of 2019 was initiated.
Dr Lee Kae Meng Thomas issued a report.
Dr G Kandasami issued his first report.
Dr G Kandasami issued his second report.
Dr G Kandasami issued his third report.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether the elements of s 300(c) of the Penal Code have been established beyond a reasonable doubt
    • Outcome: The court found that all three elements of s 300(c) of the Penal Code have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Whether the defence of grave and sudden provocation has been established on the balance of probabilities
    • Outcome: The court found that the defence of grave and sudden provocation has not been established on the balance of probabilities.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction for murder

9. Cause of Actions

  • Murder

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Homicide

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wang Wenfeng v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 590SingaporeCited for the ingredients of the offence under s 300(c) of the Penal Code.
Public Prosecutor v Astro bin JakariaHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 862SingaporeCited for the burden of establishing the partial defence of grave and sudden provocation on a balance of probabilities.
Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 453SingaporeCited for the two distinct requirements that must be fulfilled before the accused can invoke the defence of grave and sudden provocation.
R v DuffyN/AYes[1949] 1 All ER 932N/ACited to define whether the accused, at the time he inflicted the injury, had experienced a sudden and temporary loss of self-control as a result of the provocation, which made him no longer a “master of his mind”
Public Prosecutor v Sundarti SupriyantoHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 622SingaporeCited for the factors to consider in determining whether the accused was no longer a “master of his mind”
Public Prosecutor v GCKCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 486SingaporeCited for the definition of evidential burden.
Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2020] 1 SLR 984SingaporeCited for the principle that there will not be any question of the Prosecution having to discharge its evidential burden by calling a particular witness if the accused person’s defence is patently and inherently incredible to begin with.
Beh Chew Boo v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2020] 2 SLR 1375SingaporeCited for the principle that there will not be any question of the Prosecution having to discharge its evidential burden by calling a particular witness if the accused person’s defence is patently and inherently incredible to begin with.
Public Prosecutor v Kwan Cin ChengHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 434SingaporeCited for the principle that courts can take into account the accused’s mental background in assessing the gravity of the provocation.
Attorney-General for Jersey v HolleyPrivy CouncilYes[2005] 2 AC 580JerseyCited for the principle that where a homosexual man is taunted for his homosexuality, the issue to be considered is whether a homosexual man having ordinary powers of self-control might, in comparable circumstances, be provoked to lose his self-control
Director of Public Prosecutions v CamplinHouse of LordsYes[1978] AC 705United KingdomCited for the principle that the partial defence of grave and sudden provocation does not afford protection to an ill-tempered man.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Murder
  • Grave and sudden provocation
  • Penal Code
  • Intention
  • Nitrazepam
  • Self-control
  • Voluntary intoxication

15.2 Keywords

  • Murder
  • Provocation
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • High Court
  • Penal Code

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law95
Murder90
Provocation75
Criminal Procedure40
Evidence30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Homicide
  • Provocation