A 53-year-old married bank manager and a 13-year-old boy bumped into each other outside of a Clementi MRT toilet, which was closed for cleaning.

They both decided to wait for it to reopen.

During the wait, the man, Sugumaran Kannan, blurted out to the boy that he was "feeling horny".

They ended up having sex in a Clementi Mall toilet.

Sugumaran, now 56 years old, was eventually sentenced to seven years and five months in prison.

A fateful encounter outside the toilet

According to a judgment dated May 17, Sugumaran worked as a manager at a bank in Clementi Mall.

The victim, a student at a local school, had an ear infection on Jul. 13, 2020, and left school early to see a doctor.

The victim testified that when he reached Clementi MRT station, he wanted to use the toilet but found it closed for cleaning.

While waiting, Sugumaran came along, and they both waited outside for the toilet to reopen.

Man said he was "horny"

After a few minutes, Sugumaran suddenly said he felt "horny" as the weather was cold.

The victim thought he had misheard the man and asked Sugumaran to repeat himself.

He then repeated himself and asked the victim if he wanted to "jerk off".

Seeing that Sugumaran had a photograph of a woman on his phone, the victim asked if he was married.

Sugumaran denied it and asked the victim if he wanted to go to another toilet together.

When the victim agreed, they headed for Clementi Mall.

While in the toilet, Sugumaran touched himself while they were relieving themselves at the urinals.

They then ended up having sex in a cubicle.

After they left the toilet together, the victim offered to exchange numbers, but Sugumaran declined because he was "scared".

Sugumaran was arrested two days later.

Claimed he was assaulted by the boy

Sugumaran was charged with obtaining sexual gratification in front of a minor and the sexual assault of a minor.

He denied his offences and claimed trial.

Sugumaran testified that he had lunch in his office and then went to the Clementi MRT toilet.

He said he talked to the victim waiting outside but "could not remember" what transpired.

Sugumaran claimed he "may have" told the victim he was planning to go to Clementi Mall's toilet instead and asked him if he wanted to as well.

He said he may have "mumbled" that he was "horny", but insisted it was a "casual mention" and not directed towards the victim.

Sugumaran further claimed he did not know where the victim was, but they ended up in the same toilet.

Before ending up in the same toilet, Sugumaran said he went to different toilets on different floors and chose one that was less crowded.

While in the toilet, he realised the victim was using the urinal beside his.

Sugumaran further claimed that the victim went into a cubicle and asked him to join in.

Sugumaran claimed the victim asked him to touch himself, but he was not interested and tried to leave.

He said he left the cubicle and returned to the cubicle again when the victim requested.

Sugumaran claimed the victim then tried to force himself on him but did not succeed.

He then managed to free himself and eventually returned to work.

Claimed he was threatened by the police

Other than providing a different version of events, Sugumaran tried to throw out his police statements, which had admissions that he had sex with the victim.

The accused's slew of allegations against the police included him being threatened and denied food.

However, as the statement-taking process was recorded on video with full audio, the judge did not find his allegations true after viewing the footage.

Judge's decision

The judge convicted Sugumaran on both charges as he found the victim's testimony to be reliable and convincing and was corroborated by Sugumaran's own police statements.

On the other hand, the judge found Sugumaran's testimony "incredible".

The judge said it was "difficult to imagine" how the victim, who was considerably shorter and smaller, could force himself on Sugumaran.

He said it was also illogical for Sugumaran to re-enter the cubicle if he was not sexually interested.

On Sugumaran's sentence, the judge said that while the crime was "opportunistic", Sugumaran had an evident lack of remorse by repeatedly trying to cast "unfounded aspersions" on the victim's character during the trial.

While Sugumaran's lawyer argued that the victim consented to the sex act, the judge emphasised that the law presumes that a minor lacks sufficient life experience and emotional and intellectual maturity to make appropriate sexual decisions for himself or herself.

The judge ultimately sentenced Sugumaran to seven years and five months in prison.

Top image via court documents