Man claims botched procedure made it impossible for him to sexually abuse daughter
TODAY file photo
SINGAPORE — His claim was that his genitals were so deformed after a botched penis enlargement procedure that he could not have sexually assaulted his teenage daughter.
But prosecutors disputed his account yesterday, zeroing in on how the 42-year-old food stall assistant vacillated on when he underwent such surgeries.
The photos of his deformed genitals — with the girth at one portion measuring 25cm — taken at the doctor’s earlier this year were also an “extremely despicable endeavour to create confusion and paint your daughter as a liar by casting doubt on her description of your penis at the time of the offences”, charged Deputy Public Prosecutor April Phang.
The man, who cannot be named, is accused of sexually assaulting his 11-year-old daughter — the oldest of his three children — in their flat over more than two years, from the end of 2011 to April 2014.
He faces 10 charges, including committing an indecent act with a child and sexual assault by penetration, as well as outraging the modesty of a minor under age 14.
The man claimed that he went for penis enlargement surgeries in Johor in 2005, 2007 and 2009 to improve his sexual relationship with his wife. But things went awry after the last procedure, causing his genitals to be deformed.
He told the court he rarely had sex with his wife after that, and it was impossible for him to have started sexually assaulting his teenage daughter two years later.
During cross-examination yesterday, DPP Phang attacked the man for lying, noting that he had given four different versions of the dates of his surgeries.
He also could not provide details about the place where the surgeries were performed, she noted.
“I put it to you that all these just show you are a liar who concocted this grossly inflated version for the primary purpose of this trial,” said DPP Phang.
The prosecutor argued that the man’s last surgery was done within the last year, since he had said that he needed to return for “top-ups” one to two years after his first surgery because the effect of the collagen fillers faded.
If his last surgery was in 2009, why had the effects not faded till now, she questioned.
And why was the victim able to describe the sexual acts she allegedly suffered in such detail, given her young age, the prosecutor added.
“Would you agree this is not age-appropriate sexual knowledge for a 14-year-old? She is able to describe the sex acts in such detail because you did such things to her,” said the DPP.
The accused, who insisted that he “never done such acts” to his daughter, could not say why, and said she might have learned about sex from her friends.
The accused, who claims his daughter made the allegations against him soon after he had chided her about her phone bill, was also asked why he never mentioned his deformed genitals to the police when he was being questioned.
“Can you explain, since this is the crux of your defence, why you never mentioned this at all?” DPP Phang asked.
The accused replied: “At that point in time, I did not have the courage to tell (them) about my deformed private part(s) and the lesser amount of sex we (my wife and I) had together.”
Earlier, the court also heard that after the man was kicked out of the house in April 2014 — after the victim had confided in her mother — his brother asked him if he had done anything inappropriate to the girl.
Noting that this question “came out of the blue”, Judicial Commissioner Aedit Abdullah asked the accused why he did not ask his brother why he would bring up the matter.
In response, the accused said that right after he denied any wrongdoing, his brother changed the subject.
The trial continues on Jan 23.
