Wife-sharing rape ring: Appeal dismissed for man who raped co-conspirator's wife

SINGAPORE: A man who was sentenced to 13 years' jail and 12 strokes of the cane for raping his co-conspirator's wife lost his appeal against his conviction and sentence on Thursday (Feb 27). 

Dismissing his case, the Court of Appeal noted that his conviction by a lower court was sound, and was satisfied that his sentence - passed in January last year - was appropriate. 

The three judges, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Belinda Ang and Justice See Kee Oon also advised defence lawyers to exercise circumspection before alleging missteps by the trial judge.

The man, only known as a finance executive in his 40s, is referred to as O in a case which involved seven men sexually assaulting drugged wives. 

A gag order was imposed on all the parties in this case to protect the identity of the victim, with offenders referred to only by letters. All have been dealt with by the courts, and O is the only one to have claimed trial.

The victim's husband, identified as J, had conspired with O and four other men to have them rape his wife between 2010 and 2018. 

During O's trial, J testified that he had searched for people to help test his wife's loyalty to him, settling on O. O began having an affair with J's wife secretly, but J discovered it eventually. 

After this, J drugged and blindfolded his wife on their third wedding anniversary on Mar 14, 2011 and invited O to rape her at his home. 

J's wife only discovered the offences in January 2020 as she found explicit photos of herself in her husband's phone that indicated the involvement of other men. 

As part of his appeal on Thursday, the man's lawyer Chenthil Kumarasingam said his client had gone down to the victim's house on the day of the offence as he had been curious to see someone "knocked out" by sleeping pills.

His client also thought that the victim's husband had wanted to confront him about his sexual affair with the victim. 

This was the position the man had first put forth during his trial.

However, the Court of Appeal judges pressed Mr Chenthil for an elaboration on why his client had gone down to the victim's house on the day of the incident. They pointed out that his concern for his safety did not square with his desire to sort things out with the victim's husband. 

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon repeated that he could not understand why O had gone to the house if, like O had mentioned, the victim's husband had some background in martial arts.  

"I couldn't understand why he had gone over if at the same time he was concerned that (J) had a background in fighting or martial arts and that he was going to confront (him).

"Why would he go over and put himself in that situation?" the Chief Justice asked.

Mr Chenthil replied that his client wanted to resolve the matter, but Chief Justice Menon then asked how he intended to. 

"It doesn't entirely make sense to me ... I don't completely understand it if he says he had all these concerns about encountering (J) who had pugilistic abilities and therefore concerned they might have this confrontation, I don't understand why he went," said Chief Justice Menon, saying he found this confusing. 

Mr Chenthil also sought to argue that J had a vendetta against his client for the affair with his wife. This was after J was incarcerated in 2020 and found out about the affair through a letter from his wife. 

J had then set out to frame his client, Mr Chenthil said. 

However, Chief Justice Menon expressed some doubts about how J could have "suddenly activated" his plan to frame O between the time of his arrest and his video recording interview. 

He was also doubtful about the lawyer's characterisation of a text message exchanged between J and O, describing what appeared to be sexual acts between O and the victim in detail. 

The lawyer suggested that the text had been a fantasy between individuals with unconventional sexual preferences, but Chief Justice Menon disagreed. To him, the text did not give a sense of being a "figment of imagination". 

Mr Chenthil agreed with the Chief Justice that a plain reading of the text did not indicate it was fictional, but said that it could also be a "fake recollection" by an individual with unconventional sexual preferences. 

Another issue raised by the defence related to alleged discrepancies between the date of his client's offence and the date of offences other co-accused persons had pleaded guilty to.

However, the judges found this argument misplaced. Noting that the other co-accused persons had pleaded guilty, the judges said that the courts were not required to examine the evidence related to the dates in those cases. Moreover, evidence in O's case had been led during the trial. 

Following his failed appeal, O applied to have his sentence deferred to arrange transportation for his children's schooling and tuition. 

Mr Chenthil said that his client would like to prepare his children for his absence and to make other arrangements, including for his father's medical treatment.