Ex-PA employee fails to overturn conviction for sexual assault of teen boy in 2007

CNA

01-08-2025

SINGAPORE: A man who used to oversee a youth network as part of his role in the People's Association (PA) failed in his appeal to overturn his conviction for sexual offences involving a teen boy.
Ranjeet Prasad was the manager of community projects for the PA in the South East or North West Community Development Council. He oversaw a youth network that organised events for those under 21. He has since been dismissed from the PA.
He was accused of manipulating the victim, then 16, into the sexual acts in 2007 after getting to know the teen that year. The victim cannot be named to protect his identity.
At a lower court, Prasad claimed trial and was found guilty on three counts of having carnal intercourse against the order of nature.
He first met the teen in 2007 when the latter participated in a singing competition.
The victim had been excited about being a part of the youth network as it involved modelling, something he was interested to pursue as he hoped to become a singer or actor. He had also been excited to meet Prasad on several occasions under the belief that he had secured a photoshoot or could have been recruited as talent.
Prasad had asked the boy "how far he was willing to go" and about oral sex.
He committed three instances of carnal intercourse with the victim between Jun 7, 2007 and Dec 31, 2007.
One instance occurred in a cubicle of a male toilet in the vicinity of Paya Lebar, where Prasad's office had been. The other two instances were in a hotel in the Lavender area.
A District Judge sentenced him to 10 years and six months' jail, and Prasad filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence.
Justice See Kee Oon, who presided over the appeal on Friday, dismissed both appeals.
ACCUSED'S APPEAL ARGUMENTS
Prasad, represented by lawyer Martin Francis De Cruz from Shenton Law Practice, urged Justice See to set aside his client's conviction on the grounds that the victim's testimony in court was not "unusually convincing" due to several inconsistencies.
Mr De Cruz pointed out what he described as discrepancies between the evidence given during the trial and previous statements.
One "elephant in the room" was the victim's testimony that his mother had taken him to see a psychiatrist at National University Hospital (NUH). His mother had given evidence that she could not recall doing so, pointed out Mr De Cruz.
The victim said that he informed an NUH psychiatrist about his sexual assault.
"Your honour, in such circumstances, if the complainant's testimony were true and correct, the psychiatrist would have been called to give evidence in court," said Mr De Cruz, adding that a "memorandum" setting out the victim's account would have been produced.
"The simple fact that there was no evidence of this adduced in court has to be taken as ... a contradiction against his testimony," the lawyer added.
"The irresistible inference must be that he did not see a psychiatrist, and he did not make any complaints of (sexual assault) to the psychiatrist."
The lawyer applied the same argument to the victim's alleged reports of the offences to professionals at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE).
"(Prasad's) strongest argument would be this: These were three institutions which he reported the (sexual assault) incidents to. No persons from these institutions were called to give evidence in corroboration of his narrative ... no documents were adduced of his complaints," Mr De Cruz said.
Mr De Cruz also pointed out the discrepancies between the victim's testimony in court and his police statement on the location of the toilet where one of the offences had occurred.
The victim testified that the toilet was within a building, but stated this toilet was outside the building in his statement to the police.
The defence also argued that the victim told his brother and sister about the offences in 2017, but that both of his siblings were not called as witnesses to corroborate his evidence.
Mr De Cruz briefly raised a point related to the victim's motive by suggesting that he had faced financial difficulties, but discontinued this argument later on.
This point was disregarded by Justice See after Mr De Cruz clarified that he would not pursue this argument.
"The question is whether the complainant's testimony is unusually convincing and (my client's) position is (that) in the light of these contradictions one cannot say ... the complainant's testimony was unusually convincing," said Mr De Cruz.
PROSECUTION'S REPLY
The prosecution, represented by Deputy Public Prosecutor Selene Yap, disagreed that the lack of evidence from professionals from IMH, NUH and AWARE were contradictions.
"Yes, their disclosure could have been corroborative, but the lack of such evidence, especially disclosures made (much later than the commission of the offences), does not warrant negative inferences being drawn in relation to (the) victim's evidence," Ms Yap said.
On the inconsistency of the location, Ms Yap said this had been considered by the District Judge. The fact remained that the victim was consistent about the offence occurring in a toilet near the building where he first met Prasad, Ms Yap said.
The District Judge found that the discrepancy was not a material inconsistency, and would not affect the victim's credibility, the prosecution said, adding that "some leeway" had been given due to the passage of time.
HIGH COURT'S DECISION
Justice See said he agreed with the District Judge that the prosecution had no duty to call particular witnesses as long as the available evidence sufficed.
He maintained that evidence from the medical professionals and counsellors of the institutions mentioned would not have constituted corroborative evidence, as the reports would have been made more than a decade after the offences.
He agreed with the lower court judge that the location of the toilet was an immaterial point, as the key aspects of the victim's account remained consistent.
In his remarks, Justice See noted the "rather long delay" between the time the offence was committed and when it was reported.
However, he said there was no general rule which required the immediate reporting of sexual offences, and the victim had provided "adequate and compelling" reasons for the delay.
He found that the District Judge had not erred in finding the evidence "unusually convincing" and the charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
On Prasad's sentence, Justice See found that it was not "manifestly excessive" or "out of step" with past cases.