News

Man on Death Row Acquitted After Court of Appeal Found It to be a Case of Mistaken Delivery

2022-05-28 , 10:00 am

When it comes to smuggling drugs into the country, Singapore’s stance is firm: anyone caught doing so will face harsh consequences.

Even if a neighbouring country tries to save their own, they aren’t spared the death sentence.

But just like the following case shows, that doesn’t mean Singapore isn’t fair.

Two Men Arrested For Drug Delivery

40-year-old Raj Kumar Aiyachami was arrested together with another man Ramadass Punnusamy back on 21 September 2015.

Ramadass, then a lorry driver for a transport company in Johor Bahru, had driven into Singapore and delivered a red plastic bag to Raj at Senoko Drive.

Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers were aware of the transaction and arrested both of them shortly after.

At that time, the pair did not dispute the possession of drugs.

Raj was convicted in 2020 of trafficking more than 1.8kg of cannabis, which comes with a mandatory death sentence.

Ramadass was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for being a drug courier.

A Conversation in Prison

Between Nov 2017 and Jan 2018, Mark met a man, Mark Kalaivanan Tamilarasan, in prison.

During one conversation the pair had in the prison yet, Raj came to know that Mark had ordered “ganja” (cannabis) but received Butterfly instead at Senoko Loop.

He advised Raj to speak to his lawyers about this and subsequently testified for him in court.

Testimony Rejected

Unfortunately, the evidence and testimony provided by Mark were rejected by the trial judge.

At that time, the judge believed that there was “ample opportunity” for Mark and Raj to collude and cook up a story.

The judge also ruled that Raj would have known that he was carrying cannabis by the smell of the package.

Court of Appeal Overturn The Conviction

On 27 May 2022, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of both Raj and Ramadass.

It found that the trial judge made a mistake in rejecting the testimony provided by Mark as the court should not have done so without specific findings about collusion.

“There is an immense difference between having the opportunity to do something and actually doing that thing.”
— Court of Appeal regarding the case

Just the fact that Mark would implicate himself for a serious offence that he wasn’t investigated or charged for would make it an extremely strong factor in considering his testimony.

Discrepancies

Ramadass was represented by Ms N K Anitha, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Johannes Hadi for the appeal case.

They contested the reliability of the statement that Ramadass had given to the police on that day.

While the prosecution argued that the statements proved that Ramadass had admitted to knowing what he had in his possession, numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies were found in his statement.

Ramadass had consistently maintained that he thought he was bringing in chemically-sprayed tobacco (Butterfly).

It isn’t known yet what will happen to the pair after their acquittal.