>>>>69 I also noted that the Accused claimed that he was dressed in a t-shirt and shorts, without underwear, because he had been dressed in that manner all day and he was only going to NUS to drop off an application form, intending go home immediately thereafter. It must then be asked why he needed to carry a jacket with him. He claimed that he did so in NUS because he usually went to lecture theatres and offices which were cold. However, by his own account, he was not going to attend any lecture or go into any office that evening; he was only dropping off an application form in his lecturer’s pigeon hole. If so, there was no reason for him to bring a jacket along. Next, since his bag only contained some CDs and a bottle of water, it must be asked why he needed to carry his jacket in his hand instead of putting it in his bag, which would clearly have been more convenient for public transport.
=> Lotsa people, especially SPGs, do that to act stylo mylo what!
Three facts, when taken together, resulted in an extremely unusual scenario: the Accused was not wearing underwear on the bus, he unnecessarily brought a jacket with him, then carried it in front of his crotch during the bus journey. These facts, when considered with what the victim felt and saw, left me with little doubt that the jacket was used for the express purpose of concealing his crotch when took took his penis out of his shorts and brushed it against the victim’s thigh.<<<
So one can be convicted cos of such silly facts?
