HKSAR v. NALBO KRISHNA KUMAR

CACC 139/2022 [2023] HKCA 667

On appeal from [2022] HKDC 886 & [2022] HKDC 887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 139 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 642 OF 2021)

_______________

_______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1.  On 29 July 2022, the applicant was convicted after trial before Deputy District Court Judge Ivy Chui of a single charge of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. He was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

2.  This is a case of domestic violence, involving a husband assaulting his wife. At about 10 pm on 18 March 2021, the applicant came home in an intoxicated and belligerent state and began quarrelling with his wife. He went into the kitchen and returned, striking his wife in the head with a sharp object. She was in pain and noticed that she was bleeding from the head. He went into their bedroom and then left the apartment. She followed him downstairs but was unable to catch up with him. She sought the assistance of the security guard in the ground floor lobby, who called for an ambulance. She was taken to hospital, where she received medical treatment for her wound. She had sustained a laceration to her scalp of about 5 centimetres which required seven stitches.

3.  The applicant testified in his defence and denied that he assaulted his wife. He claimed she was drunk and argumentative when he arrived at the apartment. He did not want to argue with her, so he left soon after arriving. She was not injured at the time. It was the defence case that the wife sustained her injury by falling and hitting her head on the table or chair in the apartment.

4.  A police investigation uncovered a chopper in the bedroom of the apartment. However, no blood or DNA was found on the blade. The government chemist who examined the chopper testified that this may have been due to wiping or cleaning the blade.

5.  In a comprehensive review of the evidence, the judge found that the applicant’s testimony was implausible, which she rejected. In contrast, she found the wife to be a truthful witness and accepted her evidence. She was satisfied that the applicant hit his wife in the head with a sharp object, which resulted in a wound to her head.

6.  In sentencing the applicant, the judge noted that the usual range of sentence for the offence of wounding with intent was between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment. She was guided by HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [1] in assessing the gravity of the offence, particularly in the context of a case of domestic violence. She rightly observed that the courts treat very seriously cases of domestic violence, which are usually punished with an immediate custodial sentence.

7.  The judge imposed a sentence of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, having noted that no meaningful mitigation had been advanced on his behalf.

8.  The applicant has not advanced any grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence, except to claim that the accusation against him was false and that he did not inflict the injury on his wife. He provides no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal, and has no cause for complaint for his conviction of this offence and the sentence imposed on him. The judge carefully evaluated the evidence in determining he was guilty of the offence and properly assessed the criminality involved in the sentence she passed against him.

9.  The applicant’s leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.

10.  The applicant is reminded of his right to renew his application for leave to the Court of Appeal, but he is also informed of the consequences of doing so, which may include a direction for any loss of time spent in custody pending his appeal, if the Court were to come to the view that there was no justification for the renewal of his application.