Man, who stalked woman in Holland Village & raped her, fails in appeal to reduce 15-year jail sentence, his wife posts bail

A man in Singapore, convicted after stalking and raping an intoxicated woman in her home, lost his appeal to reduce his 15-year jail and 12 strokes of the cane sentence.

Dhanabalan Fok Jin Jin, 43, had appealed against his rape conviction and to have his jail sentence reduced to 13 years.

After a nearly three-hour court hearing on Oct. 13, the judges dismissed the appeal.

They decided to uphold both the conviction and sentence, as well as the order the accused to pay the victim about S$18,524 in compensation for the psychological harm caused.

Fok appeared at court for the appeal hearing on bail.

About the case

On Jan. 30, 2021, Fok, along with a friend Lee Kit, now 37, followed the victim and one of her friends for about 45 minutes at Holland Village after she had drinks.

Surveillance footage showed the two men stalking the victim and her friend between about 10:45pm and 11:30pm.

The men then offered to drive the two women home.

The victim initially turned the men down, but could not book a ride.

The two women vomited and fell asleep in the backseat of the car.

The victim was brought back to her home and she took a minute to find her access card.

Lee used it to open the gate.

The court heard contrasting versions of what happened in the apartment, but Fok did have sex with the victim and Lee performed a sex act on her.

Lee, who testified as a prosecution witness during the trial, said Fok wanted to follow the two women because they were drunk.

The victim’s friend was lying on the same bed. She was not sexually assaulted.

The victim was sexually assaulted between 11:50pm and 12:10am.

She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mixed depressive and anxiety disorder (MDAD) as a result of the incident.

During trial in 2025, Fok asserted that the victim had consented to sex, but this was shot down by the trial judge, who found that she had been too intoxicated to do so.

Fok and Lee drove off after leaving the apartment.

In the car, they discussed whether they could get in trouble with the law.

Fok then realised his mobile phone was still at the woman’s home.

The duo returned to the condominium and tried to persuade the victim to return the phone.

She called the police instead.

During the trial, Fok had denied having sex in the bedroom, but then admitted to it after audio recordings from his in-car camera captured him saying he was worried about getting caught.

He said he denied having sex as he was “scared” that his wife might find out about his actions.

Fok also told the police that the woman started touching him while they were kissing on the bed.

At trial, he said he kissed the woman to ascertain whether she was interested in sex after she began stroking his thigh.

The trial judge said Fok's lie showed his guilty conscience.

In March 2024, Lee was already sentenced to 20 months’ jail and four strokes of the cane after he pleaded guilty to molesting the same woman.

Issue of consent

Defence lawyer Ramesh Tiwary, representing Fok, focused most of his appeal submissions on the issue of whether the victim had consented to sex with Fok that night.

He challenged the prosecution's point during trial that she lacked the capacity to consent because she had been unconscious due to the alcohol she had consumed.

They had highlighted Lee's testimony where he observed that she did not actively participate in sex with Fok.

Tiwary, citing the same testimony by Lee, argued that there was a difference in how the victim responded to the two men.

According to Lee, while she had no reaction when Fok penetrated her, she made a slight movement to push Lee's hand away when he performed the act after Fok.

Tiwary further argued that just because she gave no reaction to Fok cannot prove that she was unconscious at the time, "because there is nothing to say a person must react in a particular manner in a sexual encounter".

He also pointed out that before they got to her house, the victim was fully capable of taking care of herself and even assisted her friend from the car, as seen from CCTV footage.

She also appeared to have the presence of mind after the sexual act to call her mother and the police to report Fok, Tiwary added.

The prosecution, however, said that beyond what happened in the bedroom, there was a lot of other corroborating evidence to support that she was incapacitated and was not able to give consent at the time.

They reiterated the medical evidence cited during the trial, where two doctors found that the effects of the victim's alcohol intoxication would have peaked at the time of the sexual act.

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Ivan Chua argued that even "if she was conscious, she did not give consent" given her lack of response to Fok.

Why Fok was scared

Both the defence and the prosecution also debated over Fok's reaction to being seen by the victim after the sexual act.

According to audio recordings from the in-car camera in Fok's car, Fok told Lee that the victim had sent him out of her apartment, which made Lee react in surprise.

Fok then said, "Suddenly I just feel scared sia... cos I do with her already what."

At the appeal hearing, the judges pointed out these reactions to argue that the two men were surprised because both of them were operating on the basis that she was asleep during the sexual act.

The judges questioned why were they worried that she had seen Fok's face when she saw him out of the flat, and why would they be concerned about that if the sex was voluntary and consensual.

Tiwary argued that they would not have been worried about that as the victim had already seen the men's faces earlier at Holland Village.

Fok's fear was instead that the victim would "twist things around", the lawyer said.

The prosecution countered that Fok showed guilt because he initially denied to the police that he had had any sexual contact with the victim.

Violation and wearing protection

At one point, Judge Ang Cheng Hock asked Tiwary what he made of the evidence that the victim called the police and her mother shortly after the incident saying she was sexually assaulted.

Tiwary replied that because she felt violated does not mean she was violated.

Chua, who later responded to a similar question, said her behaviour showed that she was not a person who consented — she felt violated and felt that she should report the man to police.

On the issue of Fok not wearing a condom during the sexual act, Tiwary said there are very few rapists who carry a condom.

He believed it was "part and parcel" of a violation.

It is a factor that would be found on almost every rapist, he added, and argued that its weight as an aggravating factor towards his sentence should be less.

Judges' decision

After some deliberation, the judges found based on the evidence, that the victim was in a "non-responsive and barely conscious state" when Fok performed the sexual act.

They disagreed with Tiwary's point that the slight movement she made in response to Lee was sufficient to indicate consciousness, and said the trial judge's conclusion on her lack of capacity to give consent was not wrong.

They upheld the rape conviction.

The judges did, however, counter the previous finding that Fok had committed the offence with premeditation.

Even though he did follow the victim around in Holland Village for nearly an hour and showed an intention to engage in a sexual act with her, he did not intend to not seek her consent, they argued.

His actions were opportunistic but not sufficient to consider premeditation as an aggravating factor.

Ultimately, they said the original sentence of 15 years in jail, 12 strokes of cane, and S$18,524 in compensation was not excessive, and upheld it.

They also granted Fok's request to extend his bail so that he could spend some time with his uncle, whom Tiwary said was unwell with cancer.

Fok will begin serving his jail term from Oct. 27, 2026.

His wife was present at the hearing to act as his bailer.