SINGAPORE — Driving home the point that former cop Iskandar Rahmat never intended to kill his two victims, his defence lawyer Shashi Nathan today (Nov 23) urged the High Court to convict him under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code, which could see him spared from the gallows if convicted.

Iskandar, 36, was charged under Section 300(a), which carries the mandatory death penalty, for killing car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin and his son Chee Heong two years ago. But to be found guilty, the prosecution would have to show that Iskandar intended to cause death.

Under Section 300(c), murder is committed with the intention of causing injury sufficient “in the ordinary cause of nature” to cause death. The court has the discretion to sentence the accused to life imprisonment and caning.

Today saw the prosecution and defence present their closing submissions at the end of an eight-day trial, where both sides offered varying accounts of what transpired between Iskandar and the Tans in 14J Hillside Drive on July 10, 2013.

Mr Nathan said Iskandar knows what he did was wrong, but “one has to categorise the offences correctly”. “He was panicking — the plan to take the money had disappeared and he just wanted to get out of the house. He caused terrible injuries but he never intended to kill them,” he said.

Mr Nathan further argued that should the court find Iskandar’s actions — which he is claiming sprang from a sudden fight with his victims — had been committed in the “exercise and excess” of his right of private defence, then his client should be convicted of culpable homicide, a reduced charge.

Over the trial, Iskandar has claimed that the elder Tan, 67, had attacked him knife-in-hand, while the younger victim, 42, had similarly charged at him, after he attempted to rob them.

Today, Deputy Public Prosecutor Lau Wing Yum again disputed this version of events, insisting the sheer number of injuries sustained by both victims, along with the nature and location of their wounds, displayed Iskandar’s intent to cause death.

The accused’s version of the story had loopholes, and hence, his defending arguments were not applicable, Mr Lau said. Claiming panic, Iskandar had earlier said he wanted to flee the house after the stabbings. Yet, he paused to adjust the left wing mirror of the getaway car. “Road safety would clearly not be the top priority for someone who was in such a grave state of panic,” wrote Mr Lau in his submissions.

Justice Tay Yong Kwang echoed this, and also questioned why Iskandar would have cupped his hand over the older victim’s mouth to silence his shouts during the altercation, as claimed in his investigation statement. “When somebody is fighting for his life, the last thing you would think of is stopping the attacker from shouting,” said Justice Tay, who also grilled Iskandar on his various claims during the trial. In response, Mr Nathan said that Iskandar had done that instinctively, as fleeing the scene was still on his mind. As for adjusting the car mirror, Mr Nathan said that Iskandar wanted to ensure that he could reverse “quickly and smoothly”.

The verdict will be delivered next Friday.