Little India Riot: No case for defence to answer: Lawyer

SINGAPORE - There is no case for the defence to answer, according to construction worker Mahalingam Thavamani's lawyer yesterday, after the prosecution wrapped up its side of the trial.

When asked by District Judge Salina Ishak if he will make a submission for "no case", Counsel B.J. Lean said he will. That means he will be urging the court to set free the Indian national, charged for obstructing police during the Little India riot, without having to put in a defence.

The court told the lawyer he has to enter the submission by May 5.

The 27-year-old Thavamani is accused of obstructing Deputy Superintendent of Police Subramaniam N. during the riot on Dec 8, when he allegedly tried to enter a restricted area along Belilios Road despite being told not to.

The prosecution's sixth and final witness - 27-year-old grass cutter Balakritinan Madhu Damodran - yesterday seemed to back up Thavamani's claims that he was only waiting for his younger brother, who had gone missing in the chaos.

Mr Damodran said he had not observed his friend Thavamani disobeying any order or acting in an agitated manner towards the police, as DSP Subramaniam had earlier testified.

Instead, Thavamani told an officer "my brother is lost", said Mr Damodran. "He (Thavamani) was normal, he was not angry with anyone, we were also not angry with anyone."

The group of four friends who were with Thavamani that night shared his worry over his brother, who has a medical history of fainting spells, as they were all aware of his condition, added Mr Damodran, who is also from India.

He explained that the brother had recently fainted twice at work, so they were afraid for him.

Mr Damodran's account largely tallied with the testimony given by 29-year-old shipyard cleaner Malairasu Sureshkumar, another of the four friends, when he was called to the stand by the prosecution earlier this month.

Earlier in the trial, DSP Subramaniam, who ordered Thavamani's arrest, an officer from the Special Operations Command who assisted in the arrest and the investigating police officer all failed to recognise the accused in court.

But DSP Subramaniam said he was "certain that he (Thavamani) made no mention" of a lost brother. The man the DSP believed to be the accused had, instead, insisted upon entering the restricted area without giving any reason.

A police intelligence officer, who was also involved in the arrest, testified behind closed doors. District Judge Ishak is expected to make a ruling on May 12 in the case involving Thavamani - the first among the 25 charged for their role in the Little India riot to claim trial.

This article was published on April 25 in The Straits Times.

Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.