The prosecution's case

On 29 July 1998, Shaiful Edham bin Adam and Norishyam s/o Mohamed Ali stood trial in the High Court of Singapore for the murder of Iordanka Apostolova. Lawyer Peter Fernando represented Norishyam while James Bahadur Masih was in charge of defending Shaiful.

The prosecution's case was based on the police statements given by Shaiful and Norishyam. In their statements, the men admitted that Apostolova died due to Shaiful cutting Apostolova's throat using a parang, and they had disposed of the body in the canal with Hezlinda's help, and even bought items to ensure that the body remained underwater while using the rest to clean up the flat. Also, the prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Francis Tseng, charged that the two men shared a common intention to kill Apostolova, since they acted together in ensuring her death and disposing of her body. It was also revealed that Shaiful had planned to murder Apostolova all along, as he and Apostolova originally planned to buy a Toyota car (which was owned by Shaiful's second employer Eric Tan), and Apostolova, per their agreement, transferred around $40,000 from her bank account as down-payment, but due to the deal which might incur losses on Apostolova's part, Apostolova kept pestering at Shaiful over the issues, which made Shaiful gradually annoyed at the harassment and eventually wanted to kill her.

After Professor Chao Tzee Cheng took the stand and presented his autopsy findings, the defence counsel of the two men tried to argue that although the wounds were inflicted to kill Apostolova, the two men genuinely believed that Apostolova has died from the parang attack, and never knew she was alive when they disposed her body. As for the prosecution's arguments that Shaiful had long before planned the murder, Shaiful's colleague, Mohammed Noor bin Rahmat (alias Bobby), came to court as a witness and testify about a phone call conversation between him and Shaiful, in which Shaiful tried to get him involved in the murder by offering him S$14,000, and Mohammed Noor rejected Shaiful's offer, calling him not to do something stupid and feeling he was crazy. The phone call was made in the presence of Shaiful's employers Erickson Pereira and Kevin Hector, and both Pereira and Hector confirmed about the conversation between Hector and Shaiful. Still, Shaiful's lawyer James Masih tried to raise doubts over Mohammed Noor's credibility by suggesting that due to Mohammed Noor owed Shaiful some money and gold and given his alleged annoyance at Shaiful's demands to return the cash, Mohammed Noor fabricated his story about the phone call conversation.

Michael Gan, a car dealer, was another witness who got knowledge of Shaiful's plan to kill the Bulgarian student, as he told the court that Shaiful asked him to look for a professional killer to help kill someone who showed interest in his wife; this conversation was confirmed by Koh Tee Hong and Koh Tee Yang, who knew Gan through the car purchase deal and heard about Shaiful's murder plot from Gan. Masih tried to paint Gan as a liar who lied about Shaiful's plan to murder Apostolova in order to get revenge at Shaiful for the failed deal to sell the car and loss of his commission for the car.

The defence's case

When Shaiful went up the stand to give his evidence, while he recounted the friendship he shared with Apostolova, he stated that on the day of Apostolova's murder, he and Apostolova argued about the disputes in the deal to sell the car, and during the argument, Apostolova allegedly threatened to call her "foreign friends" (referring to the Mafia, presumably) to use force to settle the issues, and this escalated into vulgarities and Apostolova using a knife to fight Shaiful; Shaiful claimed that the knife wound he made on Apostolova's neck during their struggle was accidental, and he initially wanted to call for an ambulance but Apostolova said she did not want to as she did not want to get Shaiful into trouble. It so happened that, from Shaiful's account, Norishyam was already in the flat, due to Shaiful inviting him for a drink and offering S$7,000 for Norishyam's wedding plans. After asking for a drink and laid down on the floor, Apostolova, still bleeding, asked to end her life to not die a painful death from her wound, which led to Shaiful enlisting his guest Norishyam's help to kill Apostolova by telling Norishyam to cut Apostolova's neck before disposing her in the canal.^[6][7]

Norishyam however, gave a different account: he stated that he was offered S$7,000 to help Shaiful kill Apostolova. He stated that he had no wedding plans at the time, and Shaiful asked him to help kill Apostolova. He stated he came there to try to dissuade Shaiful from committing murder and did not want to accept the money. Upon entering the flat, he saw Apostolova already on the floor, bleeding from the wound while still alive, and he tried to leave, but Shaiful told him that he was already involved. Norishyam said that out of fear towards Shaiful, he helped push the cushion on her face and held her legs down while Shaiful brought the parang down on Apostolova's neck. He stated that he did not kill Apostolova, and only helped Shaiful to dispose of the body with Hezlinda's help. Norishyam also demonstrated to the court how Shaiful used the parang to hack Apostolova's throat.^[8][9][10]

Hezlinda supported her husband's testimony and also placed the full blame of the crime on Norishyam as she went on stand to give her evidence; she was not yet charged for her role in the murder at this point. However, she admitted under DPP Tseng's questioning that she would lie to save her husband from the death penalty, which was a fatal mistake as it affected both her and Shaiful's credibility, which indirectly led to him sentenced to hang.^[11][12][13]

Verdict

On 14 August 1998, High Court judge Kan Ting Chiu delivered his verdict. He found both Shaiful and Norishyam guilty of murder and sentenced both of them to death.

Reasoning first why he convicted Shaiful of murder, Justice Kan stated that there was evidence to back up the theory that Shaiful had offered money to Norishyam to help him in killing Apostolova, and there was no regular contact maintained between both men since their days together while serving National Service. Shaiful’s claim that the first slash wound was accidental was inconsistent with the pathologist’s evidence that the injury to the front of the neck was caused by slicing; Norishyam also confirmed that Shaiful sliced Apostolova’s neck by running the parang blade against the neck. He also stated that Shaiful clearly had the intent to cause Apostolova’s death over their unsettled issues, and there was no reason for the witnesses like Mohammed Noor, Michael Gan and others to lie to further frame Shaiful for the murder since he at times, expressed to them his intentions and plot to kill Apostolova, and they were truthful in their testimony.

As for why Norishyam was guilty of murder, Justice Kan gave a longer explanation, telling Norishyam that he, as what he admitted earlier, knew about Shaiful’s plan to murder Apostolova prior to leaving his home to meet him at Depot Road. Justice Kan said that if Norishyam had genuinely intended to dissuade Shaiful from proceeding with his plan, he should have made a choice to leave the flat, which he in fact did so and was alone at the ground floor after that, before deciding to return to Shaiful’s flat. After his return, not only did Norishyam never stop Shaiful from assaulting Apostolova, he even helped hold down Apostolova's legs and prevent her from making sounds while Shaiful used the parang on the victim. He even actively participated in cleaning the flat and helping the couple to dispose of Apostolova's body in a canal in Tanah Merah Ferry Road. Since he acted in accordance with Shaiful's intention to cause Apostolova's death, Norishyam should be held responsible for committing Apostolova's murder.^[8]

Also, even though Apostolova's neck wounds were not fatal enough to grant an immediate death, they shared the common intention to cause her death and inflicting fatal neck wounds on her to kill her, and although the disposal of the victim's body in the water was responsible for escalating her process to death and was done under the mistaken belief that she died, it did not downplay the intention of the duo to murder Apostolova. Therefore, the judge ruled that the men were to be held liable to murder convictions and hence imposed the mandatory death sentences on the two of them.^[14]