SINGAPORE - The unresolved inconsistencies in the testimony of a woman who accused online content creator Lev Panfilov of raping her gave the Court of Appeal reason to doubt her account of a violent sexual assault.
But neither her account of a rape nor TikToker Panfilov's account of consensual sex was more believable than the other, the court said in written grounds issued on Nov 5.
"In such a situation, the court could only be guided by the 'cornerstone of our criminal jurisprudence' that, where the evidence may lead to two equally reasonable results, that suffices to establish reasonable doubt."
In a 92-page judgment, the court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Ang Cheng Hock and Justice Sushil Nair, set out its detailed reasons for acquitting Panfilov on Sept 2.
The woman had accused Panfilov of sexually assaulting her in his bedroom on Jan 12, 2021.
He was then a scriptwriter and actor with YouTube channel Wah!Banana. She had worked as a model and actress and was trying to branch into comedy.
They "matched" on Tinder in early January 2021. A few days later, on Jan 12, they met at a restaurant at Robertson Quay and went separately to Panfilov's condominium unit, which he shared with flatmates. They sat on Panfilov's bed to work on her script. For about 1 and a half hours, they talked about writing characters and watched videos that they found funny.
On Jan 18, 2021, the woman lodged a police report alleging that he had raped and sexually assaulted her.
Panfilov maintained that they had consensual sex. He suggested that she made the police report because she was not happy that he later "ghosted" her, referring to a situation in which one person cuts off communication with another.
He was initially sentenced to 11 and a half years' jail and 12 strokes of the cane in May 2025, after a High Court judge convicted him on two counts of rape, one count of sexual assault by penetration and one count of outrage of modesty.
On Sept 2, he won his appeal and was acquitted of all four charges.
In its written grounds on Nov 5, the court noted that the prosecution had repeatedly alluded to the trauma that the woman purportedly endured as a result of the alleged assault to explain the inconsistencies in her actions in the days following the incident.
"Philosophically, it is not inconceivable that a complainant could get it all wrong in the face of such trauma," said the court.
"We were acutely aware of the need to give adequate allowance to victims of sexual assault who might, quite understandably, experience a wide range of emotions and react in a multitude of different ways which those of us who are not in their shoes can only begin to comprehend."
The court said it had to strike a balance between giving the complainant adequate allowance for the trauma she may have suffered and the fundamental principle that any reasonable doubt ought to be resolved in favour of the accused.
The inconsistencies in her evidence were material, and the explanations provided were insufficient or lacking in credibility. Thus, the prosecution's burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt had not been met.
The judgment went into detail on the various inconsistencies and unresolved questions.
One of them related to whether the woman had screamed during the alleged assault.
When she was medically examined on Jan 18, 2021, she told the doctor that she had screamed but was stopped by Panfilov.
On the other hand, her testimony in court implied that she made a deliberate choice not to scream because, among other reasons, she was fearful of him.
The change in her testimony "suggested that the complainant may have embellished the facts" when describing the incident to the doctor, the court said.
The inconsistency relating to the woman's request for a doctor's memo also put a dent in her overall credibility, said the court.
On Jan 16, 2021, she visited a clinic to ask for a memo documenting her injuries because she wanted to approach Panfilov's family, possibly to tell them what happened.
When the doctor declined to examine her until a police report was lodged, she asked him to cancel the record of her consultation.
However, the woman said she could not recall asking for a memo and that she had gone to the clinic to seek medical attention.
On the same day, she went to a police station but ultimately chose not to file a report as she felt she had no evidence.
The court said this was inconsistent with her testimony that her blood-stained underwear, which was provided as corroboration of a violent sexual encounter, had been in her laundry basket all along.
The judges also addressed the woman's post-incident conduct.
Panfilov's lawyers had highlighted that after the alleged assault, she gave Panfilov her address for him to book a car to take her home and replied to his message checking if she had arrived home safely.
CCTV footage also showed her walking normally out of the lift at Panfilov's condo.
The judges did not think the woman's decision to give Panfilov her address and to reply to his messages were explicable.
As for the footage, the court said it was not helpful in making a determination one way or the other.
Panfilov was represented by Johannes Hadi, Eugene Thuraisingam and Seraphine Loh.
[[nid:746720]]
This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.