Threat of imminent execution in Singapore
Arun Prakash Vaithilingam, a young Indian aged 25 years has been convicted
for murder by a Sinagaopre court and mercy petitions have all been dismissed.
The date of execution is 3 October 2003. There are a number of serious
discrpancies in the evidence in the case which mitigate against the death
APPEAL TO ALL EMAIL RECIPIENTS
Arun Prakash Vaithilingam
CRIMINAL CASE NO.60 OF 2002
On 22/12/2001 in the morning when they were going to the work spot in the lorry PW Palvannan overheard a remark by the deceased Lenin about the accused Arun.The said witness advised he deceased not talk ill of the accussed. A scuffle ensued between them but was diffused by others.
That evening Arun had returned to the flat at 11.00 pm after his visit to the groceries shop for Christmas purchase help of his employer and then went to a coffee shop with his colleagues for drinks. They all had beer and in an inebriated mood.
Then at about 11.30 hrs Arun Prakash Vaithilingam went to see the deceased Lenin and asked about morning incident. Altercations seems to have started between them and all others collected there tried to pacify them. Arun then saw a kitchen knife in the kitchen next to his room and picked it up and during the sudden fight between him and the deceased Lenin he has stabbed Lenin in the chest. Immediately along with others Arun took him to the Alexandra Hospital where Lenin was pronounced dead at 01.02 hrs on 23/12/2001. Arun was arrested on 18/03/2002 at Causeway Check point, when he attempted to leave the country. Then he was charged with the murder of Lenin. and convicted for an offence u/s.302 SPC and sentenced to death. Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2002 was dismissed and the sentence of death has been confirmed. It is learnt that the President of Singapore rejected a mercy petition filed on his behalf.
A. Prosecution has stated that Arun went straight to the Kitchen after failining to get PW Palvannan and picked up a knife from the kitchen and went to Lenin’s room. He woke up Lenin and picked up a quarrel, followed by a minor scuffle. Then Lenin was stabbed by Arun in the chest, which resulted in his death.
B. Arun in his Statement has stated that he had gone unarmed to Lenin’s room. (PW Pugalmani has also corroborated this version But after hustled out by Subramani and one or two others towards his room, he was pushed into the kitchen room which was next to his room. he took a kitchen knife only to frighten Lenin. (Pw Leo has also found to ask Arun “Hey! Why are you taking the knife while talking? Just drop it”) Pw Subramani .PW Pillai held his right arm and Pw Palvannan held by his T-shirt restrained him. At the same time, PWs Pugalmani and Nagaraj were trying to force Lenin to sit on the bed who kept getting up. While he was struggling to free himself he had knife in his right hand and he remembers that in the scuffle he swing it to his left hand a momement before he was not aware of that he had injured anyone at that time. The first inkling that he had done so was when he blood at the tip of the blade when he hustled out of Lenin’s room.
The Court of Appeal has stated and found that “In this regard,
I will give Arun the benefit of doubt and hold that in my view the quarrel
was sudden”-page 16.
But it is found in para 4 of appeal judgment that “Dr.Paul Chui,
the pathologist has described in detail the damage caused by the knife.
The blade cut through about 11 to 19 cm of tissue, although the heart
itself is not perforated, two important vessels, the main pulmonary artery
and the left pulmonary vein were cut.”
G. The Court of Appeal has agreed with the ruling of decision –PP v Ramasamy, and held this case is not similar to that case.
There is a major difference in evidence about whether Arun took the knife
and went to the room of Lenin or went first to Lenin’s room and
later during the quarrel when he was pushed into the kitchen he came back
with the kitchen knife to threaten Lenin? -Para7 of Appeal Judgment. But
held in this Arun went to instigate the fight armed beforehand. In such
circumstances, it is of the Opinion that he cannot avail himself the defence
under Exception 4, because he had taken an unfair advantage over the unarmed