SINGAPORE — Dismissing the appeal of two convicted Pakistani murderers, the apex court on Thursday (Sept 28) shot down the arguments of their defence lawyers, noting that they had not gone further in disputing the prosecution’s case.

Each of the accused had tried to pin the blame on the other, but the Court of Appeal ruled that the specific role they each played in the crime was immaterial, since they had the common intention to kill Muhammad Noor, 59.

On June 11, 2014, Rasheed Muhammad and Ramzan Rizwan murdered Muhammad at a lodging house along Rowell Road in Little India. 
Motivated by money, they suffocated the man with a shirt and strangled him with a string from a pair of Punjabi trousers. They also stole S$6,000 from him.

The duo got rid of the body by dismembering it, and stashing the torso and legs into two suitcases. They had planned to dispose of the suitcases at a Muslim cemetery in Kampong Glam, but when the wheels of one suitcase broke, they decided to leave it at Syed Alwi Road, also in Little India. 

It was discovered hours later by an 81-year-old man.

Despite their attempts to blame each other for the murder, the High Court sentenced both Rasheed, 46, and Ramzan, 28, to death in February. 
Video footage and photographs had showed the duo “acting as a team” by going to Mustafa Centre together to buy a saw and two suitcases for the grisly disposal of the body. 

During the appeal heard by Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang, Tay Yong Kwang and Steven Chong on Thursday, Ramzan’s lawyer Wong Seow Pin argued that his client did not commit the act and had in fact withdrawn from its participation. 

That prompted Justice Phang to ask why Ramzan helped with the disposal of the body, if that was indeed the case. “Ramzan is uneducated. He’s unsophisticated ... he’s a simple person,” said Mr Wong, implying that his client had been helping Rasheed out. 

Waving the argument aside, the judge said that Ramzan’s actions were consistent with the plan to get rid of evidence. 
Mr Wong also argued that his client had been depressed during the recording of his police statements, and that had affected his evidence. 

Justice Phang said: “When people are guilty, it’s possible that they may also become depressed.”

Mr Wong Siew Hong, representing Rasheed, also tried to deflect blame from his client by stating that the latter had no motive for the murder, and was simply “at the wrong place at the wrong time”, as he had shared a room with the victim. 

But Rasheed had admitted to participating in the murder in his police statement, said Justice Phang.

“If you put yourself in his shoes, what would you have done? Would you have said, ‘(Ramzan), you cannot do that but I will assist you anyway,’” said the judge.

In dismissing the appeal, Justice Phang said that the specific role played by each man was immaterial.

“(The murder) was clearly executed by two persons, given the complete absence of any defensive injuries on the deceased,” he added.