Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and another appeal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 October 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGCA 67
• Citation: [2022] SGCA 67
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Published date: 21 October 2022
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeals Nos 17 and 24 of 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohamed Faizal SC, Norine Tan and Chong Kee En (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Gill Amarick Singh (Amarick Gill LLC), Ng Huiling Cheryl (Trident Law Corporation) and Lee Zhe Xu (Wong & Leow LLC),Eugene Thuraisingam and Chooi Jing Yen (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles,Murder
• Hearing Date: 12 July 2022,26 July 2022

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

This judgment follows our earlier judgment in Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and other appeals [2022] SGCA 52 (“CA Judgment”), where we allowed the Prosecution’s appeal in CA/CCA 17/2020 (“CCA 17”) and convicted Azlin binte Arujunah (“Azlin”) of the murder, under s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”), of her young son (the “Deceased”). The death of the Deceased was caused by a cumulative scald injury (“Cumulative Scald Injury”) that was inflicted on the Deceased by hot water (meaning water that was heated to a temperature above 70℃) being splashed or poured on him. The relevant acts were done either by Azlin herself or by Azlin’s husband, Ridzuan bin Mega Abdul Rahman (“Ridzuan”), in furtherance of their common intention, on four separate occasions that occurred over the course of a week from 15 to 22 October 2016. In this judgment, we shall refer to the four scalding incidents as Incidents 1 to 4 respectively; and we refer to the charge on which we convicted Azlin as the “alternative s 300(c) charge”.

In the CA Judgment, we also allowed the Prosecution’s appeal in CA/CCA 24/2020 (“CCA 24”) against the aggregate sentence that had been imposed on Ridzuan by the trial judge in the General Division of the High Court (“the Judge”) arising from Ridzuan’s conviction on various offences, including, most notably, a charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a heated substance under s 326 of the Penal Code in carrying out Incident 4 (charge “D1B1”). The Judge sentenced Ridzuan to an aggregate sentence of 27 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. On the Prosecution’s appeal, we increased the punishment for charge D1B1 to life imprisonment with no caning for that charge, and ordered the other sentences to run concurrently.

Following the disposal of the earlier appeals, two issues remain outstanding in connection with the sentence to be imposed on Azlin and Ridzuan. The first issue concerns the appropriate sentence to be meted out to Azlin for her conviction on the alternative s 300(c) charge. The sentence for murder under s 300(c) is “death or imprisonment for life …” (s 302(2), Penal Code). The Prosecution submits that Azlin should be sentenced to death, while Azlin seeks life imprisonment.

As we noted in the CA Judgment at [1], this case presents an especially tragic set of facts, as the Deceased was a young child whose death was caused by his own parents in circumstances that were cruel, inexcusable, and entirely avoidable. However, it is also well established in our jurisprudence that, while cruelty or a display of inhumane treatment is a relevant consideration, the court “should not be distracted by the gruesomeness of the scene of the crime” in determining whether the death penalty should be imposed (see our decision in Chan Lie Sian v Public Prosecutor [2019] 2 SLR 439 (“Chan Lie Sian”) at [93]). Therefore, it is incumbent on us to apply the appropriate legal principles to the specific facts of this case and determine whether the imposition of death penalty is warranted for Azlin.

The second issue concerns the appropriate aggregate sentence to be imposed on Ridzuan. Aside from charge D1B1, Ridzuan was also convicted of eight other offences before the Judge. These are one other charge in relation to Incident 2 (charge D1B2) and seven charges concerning various other acts of abuse committed by Ridzuan (and Azlin) against the Deceased. After we allowed the Prosecution’s appeal in CCA 24, we ordered the sentences for the other eight charges that Ridzuan had been convicted of to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment for charge D1B1, in accordance with s 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”). However, the individual sentence which Ridzuan had been sentenced to, in respect of charge D1B2 was 12 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. Section 306(2) of the CPC, which empowers the court to run sentences concurrently, only applies to sentences of imprisonment (see Public Prosecutor v Poopathi Chinaiyah s/o Paliandi [2020] 5 SLR 734 at [42]). The remaining issue in relation to Ridzuan is whether the sentence of 12 strokes of the cane for charge D1B2 should be maintained or removed, given that he has now been sentenced to life imprisonment for charge D1B1.

Pertinent background facts

As the facts and procedural history of this matter have been set out in the CA Judgment at [9] to [38], we will only summarise the pertinent background facts here to the extent this is relevant to the issues before us. Azlin and Ridzuan started to abuse the Deceased some three months prior to the week in which the four scalding incidents occurred. These acts of abuse were the subject of other charges brought against Azlin and Ridzuan. Among other things, Ridzuan had used pliers to hurt the Deceased twice in July 2016 (charges D2 and D3). This was followed in August 2016 by Azlin hitting the Deceased with a broomstick (charge C2). Later that same month, Azlin pushed the Deceased and caused him to fall and hit his head on the edge of a pillar and this caused him to bleed from the head (charge C3). In October 2016, Ridzuan applied a heated spoon on the palm of the Deceased (charge D5), flicked ash from a lighted cigarette on him, and hit him with a hanger (charge D6).

In another incident in October 2016, Azlin pushed the Deceased, causing him to hit his head against the wall, and Ridzuan punched the Deceased on the face so hard that his nasal bone was fractured (charges C5A and D7A). On 21 and 22 October 2016, Azlin and Ridzuan also confined the Deceased in a cat cage which measured 0.91m in length, 0.58m in width, and 0.70m in height. At that time, the Deceased was 1.05m tall. He was only let out of the cage to be fed (charges C6 and D9).

The four scalding incidents occurred in the period from 15 to 22 October 2016 and may be summarised as follows. Incident 1: Between 15 and 17 October 2016, Azlin suspected that the Deceased had consumed some milk powder, and she poured hot water on the Deceased several times. Incident 2: Between 17 and 19 October 2016, Azlin poured hot water on the Deceased (though she does not remember why she did so). This caused the Deceased to shout at Azlin in response saying some words that were translated as, “Are you crazy or what?”. This angered both Azlin and Ridzuan and, as a result, they both splashed several cups of hot water on the Deceased. Incident 3: On or around 21 October 2016, Azlin became angry with the Deceased when he kept asking for a drink, and poured nine or ten cups of hot water on the Deceased, though on some of these attempts, she missed the Deceased. Incident 4: On 22 October 2016 at about noon, Azlin asked the Deceased to remove his shorts so that he could have his bath, but the Deceased did not do so. Azlin got upset and asked Ridzuan to deal with the Deceased. Ridzuan then splashed hot water at the Deceased several times until the Deceased collapsed. He died some hours later.

For ease of reference, we reproduce the alternative s 300(c) charge here:

You, … are charged that you, between 15 October 2016 and 22 October 2016 (both dates inclusive), at [her home] … did commit murder by causing the death of [the Deceased], to wit, by intentionally inflicting severe scald injuries on him on four incidents, namely: a) On or around 15 to 17 October 2016, you poured/splashed hot water (above 70 degrees Celsius) at the Deceased multiple times [Incident 1]; b) On or around 17 to 19 October 2016, together with Ridzuan bin Mega Abdul Rahman (‘Ridzuan’) and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, both of you splashed several cups of hot water (above 70 degrees Celsius) at the Deceased [Incident 2]; c) On or around 21 October 2016, you threw 9 to 10 cups of hot water (above 70 degrees Celsius) at the Deceased [Incident 3]; and d) On 22 October 2016 at about 12 noon, together with Ridzuan and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, Ridzuan poured/splashed hot water (above 70 degrees Celsius) at the Deceased [Incident 4];

which injuries are cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 300(c) read with s 34 in respect of incidents (b) and (d) above, and punishable under s 302(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

The Judge’s findings and proceedings on appeal

At this juncture, we briefly summarise the Judge’s findings below that are relevant to the question of Azlin’s intentions at the time of the offence. Azlin and Ridzuan originally each faced one charge of murder under s 300(c) read with s 34 of the Penal Code for causing the death of the Deceased through the four scalding incidents (“Murder Charges”). The Judge acquitted Azlin and Ridzuan of their respective Murder Charges primarily because she considered that there was insufficient evidence to infer that they intended specifically to inflict a bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Judge thought that this had to be shown when a conviction was sought for murder under s 300(c) arising from acts done pursuant to a common intention under s 34 of the Penal Code.

The Prosecution then sought the conviction of Azlin alone on the alternative s 300(c) charge, but the Judge rejected this because, among other reasons, the Judge thought that Azlin needed to share a common intention with Ridzuan to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (see Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and another [2020] SGHC 168 (“GD”) at [121]), and the Judge found that the Prosecution was not able to prove such a common intention beyond reasonable doubt in this case (GD at [110] and [121]).

Instead, the Judge amended the...