FA Chua J:

The appellant in this case was charged under s. 376 and s. 511 of the Penal Code (Cap. 119) with attempting to commit rape on one Chua Kim Heok and he was charged in the alternative under s. 354 of the Penal Code with using criminal force on Chua Kim Heok with intent to outrage her modesty. He was convicted on the main charge and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

For the appellant it was contended that the learned Judge was wrong in accepting the evidence of the complainant that it was the appellant who attacked her. The main complaints are that the learned Judge had accepted the evidence of the complainant without analysing and weighing it properly and that the learned Judge had treated evidence which cannot be corroboration as being corroboration of the complainant's story.

The identification of the appellant as the assailant rested solely on the evidence of the complainant but it must be remembered that the question of the identity of the appellant as the assailant was a question of fact which had to be determined on the evidence and by the light of surrounding circumstances. On this question of fact the learned Judge has recorded his findings with his reasons therefore in his judgment and this Court should not interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge, who had had the advantage of hearing the witness and obtaining an impression of her veracity from her demeanour, except for substantial and compelling reasons.

The question of the credibility of a witness is eminently one for the Court of trial before whom the witness appears. In this case we see no reason why we should not accept the finding of the learned Judge.

We have examined the evidence with great care and we have come to the conclusion that the evidence which the learned Judge said tended to implicate the appellant and corroborated the complainant's story was indeed corroboration of the complainant's story. We see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the learned Judge that the appellant was the assailant.

The only point on which we entertain any doubt in this case is whether the appellant's conduct amounted to an attempt to commit rape. It is necessary to set out what the appellant did to the complainant.

The evidence of the complainant can be summarised as follows:

At about 5 p.m. on 9 November 1964 she left Serangoon Garden Estate where she was employed as a domestic servant and while she was walking home along a track the accused came from behind her and caught hold of her. She shouted for help. He covered her mouth with his right hand and said 'Stop screaming and I will remove my hand.' He removed his hand but she shouted for help again. He ordered her to walk into the nearby bushes but she refused. He took out a knife from his waist and repeated his order. She obeyed and shouted for help as she walked to the bushes. In the bushes the accused took off his shorts and lowered his inner pants to his knees. Then he pointed the knife at her and ordered her to take off her samfoo coat but she refused. He pointed the knife at her again and said he would kill her, and she then took off her coat. Then he ordered her to take off her samfoo trousers but she showed reluctance. He threatened to stab her with the knife and she then took off her trousers. She was then in her knickers. He ordered her to kneel down but she refused. The accused then went on his knees and ordered her to take off her knickers but she refused. He threatened to stab her. She held tightly to her knickers. He then asked her to look at his penis but she refused. He pulled at her knickers, she pushed him to the ground. He stood up and threatened to kill her if she did not take off her knickers. She still refused. He knelt down and ordered her to spit on his penis but she refused. He asked her to squat down, she did so. He pushed her down. He spat on his penis and ordered her to caress his penis. She refused and stood up. He rubbed his peni