The trial of Loganatha Venkatesan, Chandran Rajagopal, and Julaiha Begum began on 6 December 1999, with
Judicial Commissioner (JC)
Choo Han Teck hearing the case in the
High Court of Singapore.
Prosecution witnesses Sairah and Fairos The prosecution’s first two witnesses were Julaiha’s two birth daughters, Fairos and Sairah, who were also Maniam’s stepdaughters. Both of them gave their account of what happened, including the background of their mother’s relationship with Maniam and how it gradually broke down in the face of jealousy, greed and legal disputes. In the court, the judge observed that the girls, in contrast to the normal expectation of parental loyalty which daughters had, were courageous in testifying against their mother and were both firm and clear in their testimonies and cross-examination, and they also expressed their resentment towards their mother for causing Maniam's death.
Defence Venkatesan's and Chandran's joint defence After the prosecution finished presenting their case, all three defendants elected to go to the stand. Venkatesan and Chandran went to testify first. Both men put up a common defence. They denied any conspiracy to commit Maniam's murder, and while they do admit that they were at the scene of the crime, both men said that it was their hired truck driver, Mani, who killed Maniam. They added they had no intent to assault or cause harm to Maniam. Venkatesan, who also denied having an affair with Julaiha, told the court that he was quite anxious to get some money for personal matters but the civil proceedings against Maniam regarding the prior assault incident had dragged on for too long, which made him wanting to ask Maniam to negotiate with him for a peaceful settlement, in which he hoped that a sum can be given to him, but expressed his fear that Maniam would go physically hostile on him at the sight of him. Venkatesan also said that he brought along Chandran, Ravichandran and Mani as he needed their help in negotiating the settlement, but Ravichandran backed out. From both Venkatesan and Chandran's accounts, they said that on the fateful day of 21 April 1999, when they arrived at Maniam's house before he was about to leave for work, both Chandran and Mani alighted the truck to express their intention to ask Maniam if he could give money to help Venkatesan's ailing father as to settle their feud. However, from their versions of what happened, Maniam behaved in a rude manner and used vulgarities on the two men. He also added that if Chandran wanted him to pay, he wanted both Chandran and Mani to bring their respective mothers to sleep with him. Chandran said that Mani was enraged upon hearing it, and thus went berserk and armed himself with a weapon to attack Maniam, and subsequently beaten him to death in spite of Chandran's pleas to Mani to stop attacking.
Julaiha's defence Julaiha was the last of the three defendants to take the stand. On the dock, Julaiha firmly denied that she had a motive to kill her husband. She also denied that she had met Ravichandran or his brother, and denied having an affair with Venkatesan, and also insisted that the family life was peaceful and it was due to the threats of her daughter to kill her in order to marry her stepfather that led to Julaiha having to leave the house and turned to Venkatesan for help, thus forging a close relationship with him. Julaiha’s lawyer, Selva Kumara Naidu, also sought to discredit Ravichandran’s credibility as a witness given that he lied on several occasions (eg. he lied to the Indian authorities that he got $3,000 from Chandran and used a fake name in his previous passport) and had also stole from Chandran, which affected the validity of his testimony against Julaiha and the other two accused.
Judgement On 14 March 2000, after a trial lasting 35 days, JC
Choo Han Teck of the
High Court released his final verdict on the case. In his 18-page written verdict, JC Choo found that the three accused persons were clearly guilty of murder based on the evidence adduced in court. He stated that he accepted Ravichandran as a truthful witness despite the situation being solely his own word against all three, because Ravichandran was speaking with “the assuredness that comes only from a person who has been where he said he has been, and done what he said he has done”, and he gave a very detailed and complete account, and he was able to recall even the most minor details, including the name and date of the film he watched with the male plotters before his recruitment (which was confirmed by the cinema manager). Aspects of his account were also supported by other minor witnesses, which gave rise to Ravichandran’s truthfulness. For the common defence of Venkatesan and Chandran, JC Choo disbelieved the weak defence they made, given that they were being seen by witnesses when committing the crime. He said that he did not believe that it was solely the missing driver Mani who fatally attacked Maniam and their arrival was not conducive for any supposed negotiation for peace since it was an early morning and there was the ongoing situation and mood of unsettled scores between Maniam and Venkatesan, which clearly concluded that this negotiation was not going to be in accordance to Venkatesan’s terms, since Venkatesan said himself, he was fearful of invoking Maniam’s rage and wrath should he presented himself within Maniam’s sight. This fear was more apparent to show why he backed out in the early attempts to murder Maniam, and since one of his hired killers, Ravichandran, abandoned the plan and fled Singapore, it forced Venkatesan to, notwithstanding his fear of Maniam, become directly involved out of necessity. Venkatesan would not have become the driver and drove the truck up so close to Maniam when it would have shown his face, and from the evidence of the broken plastic pieces on the ground, it was consistent with the fact that Mani deliberately drive the truck against Maniam’s car to prevent the latter from escaping. There was no clear explanation from Venkatesan as to why the collision happened if it was true that he came for the purpose of peace. Since the defence failed, JC Choo said it was also impossible for Mani, who played the most minor of all the roles in the murder plot, would suddenly take on a significant role and go berserk and attack Maniam on his own accord. Furthermore, with regard to the number of people seen at the scene, JC Choo judged that the discrepancies in the account of Fairos and both her neighbours did not affect the prosecution’s case, as taking into account of the time when the murder happened, the three witnesses were watching what was to them a horrible scene, viewed from different angles, each recalling different aspects of a quick and traumatic event. The judge rejected the fact that Fairos’s identification of Chandran and Venkatesan was unreliable, as he said that even before the police identification parade, Fairos was able to tell the police Venkatesan’s identity, and both the men had admitted that they were at the scene of the crime. Besides, the photograph of Maniam and the list of his vehicle numbers were also found in Chandran’s possessions, which would be more probable to say that they were used for the purpose of identifying Maniam for the kill. With regard to the
mens rea of the charge of murder against both Venkatesan and Chandran, while there was no need to prove any motive to return with a guilty verdict of murder, JC Choo highlighted that firstly, there was sufficient evidence to prove that the men arrived at Phoenix Garden with an intention to kill Maniam. Secondly, Chandran and Venkatesan had inflicted the injuries on Maniam in furtherance of their common intention to kill, hence, it was not necessary to identify who inflicted the fatal blow or blows, and they also intended to cause death by inflicting the blows on Maniam’s head. Thirdly, referring to the pathologist Dr Teo Eng Swee’s autopsy report, it was highlighted that the wounds inflicted on Maniam would, in the ordinary course of nature, result in death. Hence, based on each of these three grounds, both Venkatesan and Chandran would be guilty of murder, and in JC Choo’s comment, they had committed Maniam’s murder three times over. Turning to Julaiha’s role in the murder, the judge acknowledged that she was not a direct participant but she masterminded and abetted her male accomplices to murder her husband. He accepted that Ravichandran did not mishear Julaiha when she said “finish off” her husband, which Ravichandran took to mean murder Maniam, and it was not discredited despite the denial from Julaiha. JC Choo conceded that it is not the law that no one may be condemned to death solely on the testimony of a lone witness, given the risk of such a reliance and the fact that a wrongful
miscarriage of justice involving an innocent person executed was not amendable or subject to any compensation. The clear, correct description of the flat where Julaiha rented her room and the landlady’s subscribed television channel, as given by Ravichandran and his brother, had consolidated the former’s credibility. Besides, even though Julaiha herself had expressed that she hope for a chance to reconcile with her husband, the other evidence like her threats to kill Maniam and her declaration to the landlady and other people that the house belonged to her prior to her husband’s death, and the discrepancies in her statements and testimony had largely proven the opposite, and since she clearly had a motive to engineer her husband’s death, Julaiha should be guilty of murder. As such, JC Choo convicted all three defendants of murder, and sentenced all three of them
to death by
hanging.
Appeals After the conclusion of the trial in the High Court, Venkatesan, Chandran, and Julaiha
appealed against their respective death sentences to the
Court of Appeal. All of them argued against Ravichandran’s credibility as a witness and they raised the same arguments and defences as they did in the High Court. The appeals were all rejected in July 2000. Later, Julaiha appealed for clemency from the
President of Singapore, which was the last resort for death row inmates in Singapore to escape execution, as it would allow their sentences to be commuted to
life imprisonment if successful. On 5 February 2001, it was confirmed by her new lawyer, R Palakrishnan, that President
S R Nathan declined her appeal for clemency, thus finalizing her death sentence, and she was set to hang in a short period of time. ==Execution of convicts==