“Fault element” and “physical element”

22A.—(1) A fault element of an offence refers to any state of mind, proof of which is
needed to establish liability under that offence, including but not limited to intention,
wilfulness, knowledge, rashness and negligence.
[15/2019]

(2) A physical element of an offence refers to any fact, proof of which is needed to
establish liability under that offence, and that is not a fault element of that offence.
[15/2019]

“Reason to believe”
26. A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient cause to
believe that thing, but not otherwise.

“Voluntarily”
26A. A person is said to cause an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means
whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those
means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
Illustration
A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a robbery,
and thus causes the death of a person. Here A may not have intended to cause death, and may even be
sorry that death has been caused by this act; yet, if he knew that he was likely to cause death, he has
caused death voluntarily.
[15/2019]

“Good faith”
26B. Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed
without due care and attention.
[15/2019]

“Intentionally”
26C.—(1) A person is said to do an act intentionally where that person does an act
deliberately.
[15/2019]

(2) A person is said to cause an effect intentionally where that person does anything
that causes an effect —
(a) with the purpose of causing that effect; or
(b) knowing that that effect would be virtually certain (barring an unforeseen
intervention) to result.
Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 [15/2019]

(3) To avoid doubt, a person does not intend or foresee a result of his acts by reason
only of it being a natural and probable consequence of those acts.
[15/2019]

(4) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section prevents a court from relying on a person’s
foresight that a certain effect was a probable consequence of his act as a basis to draw an
inference that the person caused that effect intentionally.
Explanation.—Intention is distinct from motive or desire, and a person may do an act or cause an
effect intentionally even if doing so was not his motive or he had no desire to do so.
[15/2019]

“Knowingly”
26D.—(1) Whoever does an act with awareness that a circumstance exists, will exist,
or is virtually certain (barring an unforeseen intervention) to exist, is said to do that act
knowingly in respect of that circumstance.
[15/2019]

(2) Whoever does an act with awareness that an effect will be caused, or is virtually
certain (barring an unforeseen intervention) to be caused, is said to do that act knowingly
in respect of that effect.
[15/2019]

(3) Where doing an act knowingly is a fault element of an offence, that fault element
is also established where that act is done intentionally or with wilful blindness.
[15/2019; 2/2020]

“Rashly”
26E.—(1) Whoever does any act knowing that there is a real risk that a particular
circumstance exists or will exist is said to do that act rashly in respect of that particular
circumstance, if it would have been unreasonable to have taken that risk.
[15/2019]

(2) Whoever does any act knowing that there is a real risk that an effect will be
caused is said to do that act rashly in respect of that effect, if it would have been
unreasonable to have taken that risk.
[15/2019]

(3) Where doing an act rashly is a fault element of an offence, that fault element is
also established where that act is done intentionally or knowingly.
[15/2019]

“Negligently”

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 26F.—(1) Whoever omits to do an act which a reasonable person would do, or does
any act which a reasonable person would not do, is said to do so negligently.
[15/2019]

(2) Where doing an act negligently is a fault element of an offence, that fault element
is also established where that act is done intentionally, knowingly or rashly.
[15/2019]

“Transferred fault”
26G.—(1) This section applies to any offence under this Code or any other written
law where a fault element of the offence is intention or knowledge, except where
section 301(1) applies to that offence.
[15/2019]

(2) Where all the fault elements and physical elements of the offence have been
proven in respect of an accused person, and assuming no defence or exception applies,
the accused person shall be guilty of the offence despite the following circumstances:
(a) the physical elements of the offence included the doing of an act or the
causing of an effect concerning a person or thing;
(b) at the time such act or effect was done or caused, the accused person
believed or intended that the act or effect would concern a person or thing
different from the person or thing mentioned in paragraph (a).
[15/2019]

(3) Subsection (2) applies only where the accused person did or caused the physical
elements in subsection (2)(a) negligently in respect of the person or thing mentioned in
that subsection.
Illustrations
(a) A throws a stone at B intending to hurt B (but not intending, knowing or having reason to believe
that anyone else would be hurt), but the stone hurts C. A commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt
in respect of C if A threw the stone negligently in respect of C.
(b) A throws a stone at a porcelain vase intending to cause loss to its owner, B (but not intending or
knowing it likely that A would cause wrongful loss or damage in respect of any other property), but the
stone damages a clay pot belonging to C. A commits mischief in respect of C if A threw the stone
negligently in respect of C.
(c) A threatens injury to B’s person by shouting at B the words, “B, I will kill you”, with intent to
cause alarm to B. C hears these words and is alarmed. A does not commit the offence of criminal
intimidation against C as A did not threaten C with any injury.
[15/2019]

(4) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section affects the requirement to prove all the
fault elements of an offence in order for guilt to be established for that offence.

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 Illustrations
(a) A throws a stone at B intending to hurt B (but not intending or not knowing that A is likely to
cause wrongful loss or damage in respect of any property), but the stone hits a porcelain vase. A does
not commit mischief in respect of the vase. This is because A did not possess the fault element required
to commit mischief.
(b) A throws a stone at B intending to hurt B (but not intending, knowing or having reason to believe
that anyone else would be hurt), but the stone hurts P, a police officer in discharge of his duty. A
commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt against P. A does not commit an offence of voluntarily
causing hurt to P in the discharge of P’s duty as a public servant because A did not possess the fault
element required to commit this offence.
(c) A throws a stone at B intending to hurt B (but not intending or not knowing that A is likely to
cause grievous hurt), but the stone causes grievous hurt to C. A commits an offence against C of
voluntarily causing hurt where grievous hurt is caused under section 323A. A does not commit an
offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt against C because A did not possess the fault element
required to commit this offence.
[15/2019]

(5) Where the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (b) exist, the accused
person may rely on any defence or exception in law as though the act or effect mentioned
in subsection (2)(a) concerned the person or thing the accused person believed or
intended that act or effect to concern.
Illustration
A throws a stone at B in exercise of A’s right of private defence against B, but the stone hurts C. A
may rely on the defence of private defence against B if A is charged for voluntarily causing hurt to C.
[15/2019]

“Strict liability”
26H.—(1) An offence of strict liability under this Code or any written law is one
where, for every physical element of the offence, there is no corresponding fault element.
[15/2019]

(2) Strict liability is said to apply to a particular physical element of an offence where
there is no corresponding fault element for that physical element, regardless of whether
or not the offence is one of strict liability.
[15/2019]

(3) To avoid doubt, an offence may be a strict liability offence even though it is not
so expressly described by any written law; and strict liability may apply to a particular
physical element of any offence even though it is not so expressly described in any
written law.
[15/2019]

(4) It is a defence for any person charged with a strict liability offence to prove that in

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
committing all the acts or omissions that are physical elements of the offence, he
exercised reasonable care.
[15/2019]

“Illegal”, “unlawful” and “legally bound to do”

43. The word “illegal” or “unlawful” is applicable to every thing which is an offence,
or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action: and a person
is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal or unlawful in him to omit.

Nothing done in private defence is an offence

96. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Right of private defence of the body and of property

97. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in sections 98 and
106A, to defend —
(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence
affecting the human body;
(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other
person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of
theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to
commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
[15/2019]

Extent to which right may be exercised

98.—(1) The right of private defence does not extend to the inflicting of more harm
than it is reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
[15/2019]

(2) There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is reasonable

opportunity to have recourse to the protection of a public authority in the circumstances.
Illustrations
(a) Z ambushes A in a secluded area and attempts to kill A. A kills Z while fending off Z’s attack. A
is guilty of no offence because, in the circumstances, A had no reasonable opportunity to have recourse
to the protection of a public authority.
(b) Z ambushes A in a secluded area and attempts to kill A. A’s right of private defence arises
because, at that point of time, A had no reasonable opportunity to have recourse to the protection of a
public authority. In the midst of the struggle between A and Z, a police patrol car arrives on the scene.
A’s right of private defence ceases the moment A had reasonable opportunity to have recourse to the
protection of the police.

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 [15/2019]

Right of private defence against act of person of unsound mind, etc.

99. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by
reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind, or
the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the
part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act
which he would have if the act were that offence.
Illustrations
(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A. Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the
same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.
(b) A enters, by night, a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a
housebreaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A
has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that
misconception.
[15/2019]

Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to
innocent person
100. If, in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which causes
the defender to reasonably believe that death would be caused to him or to any other
person and the defender is so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right
without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the
running of that risk.
Illustration
A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. A cannot effectually exercise his right of private
defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are
mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.
[15/2019]

Start and continuance of right of private defence of body

101.—(1) The right of private defence of the body starts as soon as the defender
reasonably believes that there is danger to the body (either his own or that of any other
person) arising from any act which is an offence against the human body or an attempt or
a threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed.
[15/2019]

(2) The right of private defence continues as long as the belief of danger mentioned in
subsection (1) continues.
[15/2019]

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
When right of private defence of body extends to causing death
102. The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions
mentioned in sections 98 and 106A, to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, if
the offence which gives rise to the exercise of the right is of any of the following
descriptions:
(a) an assault where the defender reasonably believes that death will otherwise
be the consequence of such assault;
(b) an assault where the defender reasonably believes that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(c) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the
intention of committing rape as described in section 375 or causing such
rape to be committed;
(d) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the
intention of causing penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth as
described in section 376(2);
[Act 23 of 2021 wef 01/03/2022]

(e) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the
intention of kidnapping or abducting;
(f) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the
intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which
may reasonably cause him to believe that he will be unable to have
opportunity for recourse to a public authority for his release.
[15/2019]

When such right extends to causing any harm other than death
103. If the offence is not of any of the descriptions mentioned in section 102, the right
of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the
assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in sections 98 and 106A, to
the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.
[15/2019]

Commencement and continuance of right of private defence of property

104.—(1) The right of private defence of property starts when the defender
reasonably believes that there was a danger to property (either his own or that of any
other person) arising from any act which is an offence falling under the definition of
theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit such an
offence.
[15/2019]

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 (2) The right of private defence of property against theft continues till —
(a) the offender has effected his retreat with the property;
(b) the assistance of a public authority is obtained; or
(c) the property has been recovered.
[15/2019]

(3) The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the
offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or
as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint
continues.
[15/2019]

(4) The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief
continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or
mischief.
[15/2019]

(5) The right of private defence of property against house-breaking continues as long
as such house-breaking continues.
[15/2019]

When right of private defence of property extends to causing death

105.—(1) The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions
mentioned in sections 98 and 106A, to the voluntary causing of death to the wrongdoer
when the defender reasonably believes that there was a danger to property (either his
own or that of any other person) arising from any of the following descriptions:
(a) robbery;
(b) house-breaking committed after 7 p.m. and before 7 a.m. and if the
wrongdoer —
(i) effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the
6 ways described in subsection (2); or

(ii) being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of

committing an offence, or having committed an offence therein,
the wrongdoer leaves the house or any part of it in any of these 6
ways;

(c) mischief by fire committed on any building, tent, container or vessel,

which building, tent, container or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as
a place for the custody of property;
(d) theft, mischief or house-breaking, under such circumstances where the
Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 defender reasonably believes that death or grievous hurt will be the
consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised.
[15/2019]

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the 6 ways of entry or leaving by a
wrongdoer are as follows:
(a) if the wrongdoer enters or leaves through a passage made by the
wrongdoer, or by any abettor of the house-breaking in order to commit the
house-breaking;
(b) if the wrongdoer enters or leaves through any passage not intended by any
person, other than the wrongdoer or an abettor of the offence, for human
entrance, or through any passage to which the wrongdoer has obtained
access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building;
(c) if the wrongdoer enters or leaves through any passage which the
wrongdoer or any abettor of the house-breaking has opened, in order to
commit the house-breaking, by any means by which that passage was not
intended by the occupier of the house to be opened;
(d) if the wrongdoer enters or leaves by opening any lock in order to commit
the house-breaking, or in order to leave from the house after a house-
breaking;
(e) if the wrongdoer effects his entry or leaving by using criminal force or
committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault;
(f) if the wrongdoer enters or leaves by any passage which he knows to have
been fastened against such entry or leaving, and to have been unfastened
by himself or by an abettor of the house-breaking.
[15/2019]

When such right extends to causing any harm other than death
106. If the offence, the committing or the attempt to commit of which occasions the
exercise of the right of private defence, is theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any
of the descriptions mentioned in section 105, that right does not extend to the voluntary
causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in sections 98 and
106A, to the voluntary causing to the wrongdoer of any harm other than death.
[15/2019]

Acts against which there is no right of private defence

106A.—(1) There is no right of private defence against an act which does not cause
the defender to reasonably believe that death or grievous hurt would result, if done, or
attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under the actual or apparent

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
authority of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
[15/2019]

(2) There is no right of private defence against an act which does not cause the
defender to reasonably believe that death or grievous hurt would result, if done, or
attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under the
actual or apparent authority of the public servant’s office, though that direction may not
be strictly justifiable by law.
Explanation 1.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or
attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the
person doing the act is such public servant.
Explanation 2.—A person (A) is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or
attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless A knows, or has reason to believe, that
the person doing the act (B) is acting by such direction; or unless B states the authority under which B
acts, or, if B has authority in writing, unless B produces such authority, if demanded.
[15/2019]

Culpable homicide
299. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.
Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls
in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be
likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no
offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
Explanation 1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have
caused his death.
Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury
shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful
treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.—The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it
may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been
brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Murder

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 300. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is murder —
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death;
(b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused;
(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and
the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death; or
(d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous
that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits
murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to
cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in
consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound
state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him
such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state
of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of
murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary
course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a knife-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death
of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of
murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.
(d) A, without any excuse, fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills
one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated
design to kill any particular individual.

When culpable homicide is not murder

Exception 1.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of
the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the
person who gave the provocation, or causes the death of any other person by mistake
or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:
(a) that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person;

(b) that the offender did not know and had no reason to believe that the
provocation was given by anything done in obedience to the law, or
by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public
servant;

(c) that the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful
exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation 1.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent
the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact, having regard to whether
an ordinary person of the same gender and age as the offender, sharing such
characteristics as would affect the gravity of the provocation and placed in the same
situation as the offender, would be deprived of self-control by the provocation.
Explanation 2.—Grave and sudden provocation may be in the form of words,
gestures or conduct or any combination of words, gestures or conduct.
Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z,
intentionally kills Y, Z’s child. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was not
given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune
in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol
at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but
out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder but merely culpable
homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a police officer. A is excited to sudden and violent
passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was
given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that he does not believe a
word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion
by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z’s nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence,
lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion
in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by
a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander,
intending to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s
hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only
culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.
(g) A and Z are married to each other. A loses self-control on Z’s provocation and
intentionally kills Z soon after the provocation was given. Although the provocation,
when viewed in isolation, would not amount to grave and sudden provocation, it was

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 the last of a series of prolonged physical and mental abuse of A by Z. An ordinary
person in A’s position would have lost self-control and have done what A did. A has
committed only culpable homicide and not murder.
Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise of
the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by
law, and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of
defence, without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is
necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Explanation.—The word “premeditation” means the offender’s intention, which
was formed prior to the circumstances which gave rise to the act of private defence —
(a) to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is
mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or

(b) to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the

way mentioned in section 300(d).

Exception 3.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public

servant, or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice,
exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in
good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as
such public servant, and without ill will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and
without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner.
The above exception is subject to the proviso that the offender did not know and
had no reason to believe that the person whose death was caused was acting in
obedience to the law, or was a public servant acting in the lawful exercise of the
powers of such public servant.
Explanation 1.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or
commits the first assault.
Explanation 2.—The word “fight” includes the exchange of blows even if the
blows do not land on their target and includes a single blow or punch.
Explanation 3.—The word “premeditation” means the offender’s intention, which
was formed prior to the circumstances constituting the sudden fight —
(a) to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is
mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or

(b) to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the

way mentioned in section 300(d).

Explanation 4.—A “quarrel” does not require a verbal exchange of words.

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 Illustrations
(a) A and Z, who are rival gang members, are in a coffee shop seated at different
tables. They mutually stare at each other fiercely without exchanging any words. Z
disengages from A by turning away and starts to leave the coffee shop. A sees a cutlery
knife on his table which A had earlier used for A’s meal. A picks up the cutlery knife
and stabs Z’s throat in the heat of passion. Z falls and dies almost immediately.
Although there was a “sudden quarrel” without any exchange of words, Exception 4
does not apply because there was no “fight”, there being no exchange of blows or
assault between A and Z.
(b) A had a consensual sexual relationship with Z until Z terminated the
relationship. A came to Z’s house and asked Z if Z would have sex with A. Z refused. A
became angry and said A would use force, if necessary. A grappled with Z who resisted
A’s advances and struck A’s face. Enraged by Z’s resistance, A slams Z into a wall, and
Z slumps to the ground. While Z is motionless on the ground, A kicks Z’s head
repeatedly and kills Z. Exception 4 does not apply because A had taken undue
advantage of Z while Z was lying motionless on the ground.
Exception 5.—Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is
caused, being above 18 years of age, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his
own consent.
Illustration
A and Z, both being persons above 18 years of age, decide to commit suicide
together by drinking poison. With Z’s consent, A pours a lethal poison down Z’s throat
but after watching Z die, A cannot summon the courage to drink the same poison. A
has committed culpable homicide and not murder.
Exception 6.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender being a woman
voluntarily causes the death of her child being a child below 12 months of age, and at
the time of the offence the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not
having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the
effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child.
Exception 7.—Culpable homicide is not murder if at the time of the acts or
omissions causing the death concerned, the offender was suffering from such
abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded
development or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially —
(a) impaired the offender’s capacity —

(i) to know the nature of the acts or omissions in causing the

death or in being a party to causing the death; or

(ii) to know whether such acts or omissions are wrong; or

[Act 23 of 2021 wef 01/03/2022]

(b) impaired the offender’s power to control his acts or omissions in

causing the death or being a party to causing the death.

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 Paragraph (a)(ii) of the above exception applies only if, at the time of the acts or
omissions causing the death concerned, there was a substantial impairment of the
offender’s capacity to know that the acts or omissions —
(a) are wrong by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons;
and

(b) are wrong as contrary to law.

[15/2019]
[Act 23 of 2021 wef 01/03/2022]

Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose
death was intended
301.—(1) If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to
cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person whose death
he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide
committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had
caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to
cause.
[15/2019]

(2) To avoid doubt, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), the accused
person may rely on any defence or exception in law as though the accused person had
caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to
cause.
[15/2019]

Punishment for murder

302.—(1) Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section 300(a) shall be
punished with death.
[32/2012]

(2) Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section 300(b), (c) or (d) shall be
punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not punished with death,
also be liable to caning.
[32/2012]

Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

304. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall —
(a) if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, be
punished with —

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 (i) imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to caning; or

(ii) imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and

shall also be liable to fine or to caning; or

(b) if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to 15 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of
such punishments.
[32/2012; 15/2019]

Causing death by rash or negligent act

304A. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished —
(a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to 5 years, or with fine, or with both; or
(b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Causing death of child below 14 years of age, domestic worker or vulnerable person
by sustained abuse
304B.—(1) A relevant person who causes the death of any child, domestic worker or
vulnerable person by sustained abuse shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
[15/2019]

(2) In this section —

“child” means a person below 14 years of age;
“domestic worker”, “employer”, “employment agent” and “member of the
employer’s household” have the meanings given by section 73(4);
“neglect” means the failure by a relevant person to provide any or adequate
essential care (such as but not limited to food, clothing, medical aid, lodging
and other necessities of life) to the extent of causing personal injury or physical
pain to, or injury to the physical health of any child, domestic worker or
vulnerable person;
“relevant person” means —
(a) in the case of a child, a person who has custody, charge or care of the

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 child;
(b) in the case of a domestic worker, the employer of the domestic
worker, a member of the employer’s household or the employment
agent of the domestic worker; and
(c) in the case of a vulnerable person, a person who has custody, charge
or care of the vulnerable person;
“sustained abuse” means a course of conduct which consists of voluntarily causing
hurt or knowingly causing neglect, or both, of a child, domestic worker or
vulnerable person on —
(a) 2 or more occasions; or
(b) a single occasion if the conduct is protracted;
“vulnerable person” has the meaning given by section 74A(5).
[15/2019]

Causing or allowing death of child below 14 years of age, domestic worker or

vulnerable person in same household
304C.—(1) A person (A) shall be guilty of an offence if —
(a) a person below 14 years of age, a domestic worker or a vulnerable person
(B) dies as a result of the unlawful act of a person who —
(i) was a member of the same household as B; and

(ii) had frequent contact with B;

(b) A was a member of the same household as B, and had frequent contact with
B at the time of that act;
(c) at that time there was a significant risk of grievous hurt being caused to B
by the unlawful act of such a person; and
(d) either A was the person whose act caused B’s death or —
(i) A was, or ought to have been, aware of the significant risk
mentioned in paragraph (c);

(ii) A failed to take such steps as A could reasonably have been

expected to take to protect B from the significant risk; and

(iii) the unlawful act occurred in circumstances of the kind that A

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 foresaw or ought to have foreseen.
[15/2019]

(2) The prosecution does not have to prove whether it is the first alternative element
in subsection (1)(d) or the second alternative element (sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of
subsection (1)(d)) that applies.
[15/2019]

(3) A is not guilty of an offence under this section if A could not have been expected
in A’s circumstances to take any such step as is mentioned in subsection (1)(d)(ii).
[15/2019]

(4) Any person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or
to caning.
[15/2019]

(5) For the purposes of this section —

(a) a person is to be regarded as a “member” of a particular household, even if
that person does not live in that household, if that person visits it so often
and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member
of the particular household;
(b) where B lived in different households at different times, “the same
household as B” refers to the household in which B was living at the time
of the act that caused B’s death;
(c) an “unlawful” act, other than an act by A, is one that constitutes an offence
or would constitute an offence but for being the act of —
(i) a person below the age specified in section 82;

(ii) a person of the age specified in section 83 who had not attained
sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and
consequence of the act;

(iii) a person entitled to rely on a defence of unsoundness of mind;

(iv) a person entitled to rely on a defence of intoxication; or

(v) a person entitled to rely on a defence of mistake of fact;

(d) “domestic worker” and “vulnerable person” have the meanings given by
sections 73(4) and 74A(5), respectively; and
(e) the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) include but is not limited to
A’s past or present experiences of suffering neglect, hurt, grievous hurt,

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
 sexual abuse or any injury to A’s mental health as a result of an unlawful
act by any member of the same household as A.
[15/2019]

Hurt
319. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause
hurt.
Explanation.— A person is said to cause hurt if he causes another person to be unconscious.

Grievous hurt
320. The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:
(a) emasculation;
(aa) death;
(b) permanent privation of the sight of either eye;
(c) permanent privation of the hearing of either ear;
(d) privation of any member or joint;
(e) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint;
(f) permanent disfiguration of the head or face;
(g) fracture or dislocation of a bone;
(h) any hurt which endangers life, or which causes the sufferer to be, during
the space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits;
(i) penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person without
that person’s consent, which causes severe bodily pain.

Voluntarily causing hurt

321. Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or
with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby
cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt

322. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows
himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023
hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt”.
Explanation.— A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes
grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily
to cause grievous hurt if, intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind,
he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.
Illustration
A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z’s face, gives Z a blow which
does not permanently disfigure Z’s face but which causes Z to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of
20 days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.

Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

323. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 323A or 334, voluntarily
causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years,
or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.
[15/2019]

Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt which causes grievous hurt

323A. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or
knows himself to be likely to cause is not grievous, but the hurt which he actually causes
is grievous, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years,
or with fine which may extend to $10,000, or with both.
Illustration
At a club, A notices one of A’s friends fighting with Z. A runs towards Z and punches Z in the face
intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause minor injuries to Z’s face. Z loses his balance, falls
and hits his head against a ledge. Z suffers from severe brain injuries and is permanently paralysed. A
did not intend to cause grievous hurt but A’s action has actually caused grievous hurt to Z.
[15/2019]

Singapore Statutes Online Current version as at 27 Sep 2023 PDF created date on: 27 Sep 2023