The prosecution added that Ms Khan’s evidence is that she and the WP leaders simply did not discuss the possibility at the meeting – the first time she had received advice on what he what to do in case of pressure, it was during another meeting on October 3, 2021, when Singh told her he would not judge her for continuing the story.

The prosecution also called it “perplexing” that the defense argued that the phrase “take (him) to the grave” could mean different things, and that it is unreliable to rely on Ms. Khan’s interpretation of the phrase without referring to what Singh said. meant by the sentence.

He said the defense had previously claimed that Singh did not say such a phrase during the August 8 meeting, but now appears to have taken a less categorical stance on that assertion.

“If the accused’s position is that he meant something else by that expression, then it is up to him to state that in the witness box,” he added.

The prosecution said there was no reason for Ms Khan to have lied to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan about the “entombment” issue, as she had already made it clear to executives and party leaders his lie in Parliament.

Additionally, Ms Khan would have known that any lies “would be exposed almost immediately” since she knew that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were meeting Singh on August 10, 2021.

This demonstrates that Ms Khan’s text message is reliable evidence of what happened at the August 8 meeting, he said.

Justice Tan said the court was satisfied with the requirements to call Singh to testify on the interpretation of the WP leader’s responses to the COP and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, including as to whether his allegedly false response had was made deliberately. .

3. The judge must “keep an open mind” before the trial ends, the prosecution urged.

The prosecution, in its written submissions, urged the judge to “keep an open mind” about the accuracy of each witness’s testimony before the end of the trial.

Indeed, the task of evaluating the evidence should only be carried out at the end of the trial, and not at the current stage of the proceedings, the prosecution said.

For the defense to be called at the end of the presentation of the prosecution’s case, it suffices to establish that there is “evidence, not intrinsically incredible”, which satisfies each of the elements of the accusations, underlined the prosecution, citing the case. law.

This is different from the ultimate question at the end of the trial, which is whether each element of the offense has been established “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the prosecution stressed.

Meanwhile, the court should only ignore evidence presented by the prosecution when it “has been so discredited upon cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable court could convict it.” safely,” he said.

Justice Tan, in explaining his decision, said the threshold the prosecution must reach at the end of its case “must be distinguished from the ultimate question at the end of the trial”.

“If credibility is simply undermined, there remains a case to answer,” the judge added.

After setting them out, Justice Tan said: “On balance, for both counts, I am of the view that the conditions required for the accused to present his defense to both counts were fulfilled.

Singh was then asked to stand to answer whether he wished to testify under oath and be cross-examined by the prosecution, or to remain silent and allow the court to draw conclusions from his refusal to testify.

His response was: “Your Honor, I understood what you said. I chose to testify in court.