Mother who scalded 5-year-old convicted of murder on appeal; father gets life term

SINGAPORE: The mother of a five-year-old boy who died of scald injuries has been convicted of murder on Tuesday (Jul 12) following an appeal by prosecutors. 

The Court of Appeal also increased the sentence of the boy's father to life imprisonment. The couple, both 30, were initially convicted in 2020 of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by heated means.

Azlin Arujunah and her husband Ridzuan Mega Abdul Rahman were each originally sentenced to 27 years' jail. Ridzuan also received 24 strokes of the cane and Azlin received an additional 12 months' jail in lieu, as women cannot be caned.

With the appeal, Azlin's charge has been amended to murder under Section 300c of the Penal Code, which is punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal adjourned to consider Azlin's sentence after the prosecution and defence have made further submissions.

High Court Judge Valerie Thean had in 2020 acquitted the couple of murder with common intention after finding that the prosecution did not prove the element of common intention.

The boy was subject to abuse from about a year after returning to his parents from another family in May 2015. He was hit with tools like a broom or a hanger and pinched with pliers.

His parents began scalding him with hot water, leaving him limping in pain with blisters and peeling skin. He was eventually confined in a cage meant for the family cat.

From Oct 15 to Oct 22, 2016, the boy's parents scalded him with hot water on four occasions. This led to his death from severe scald injuries.

Delivering the judgment on behalf of a five-judge panel, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said that Azlin was solely responsible for the first and third scalding incidents, while she carried out the second and fourth scalding incidents jointly with Ridzuan.

During the first incident between Oct 15 to 17, 2016, Azlin grabbed her son by the ankle to prevent him from running away and poured hot water on his leg and hand several times.

In the second incident from Oct 17 to 19, 2016, Azlin threw several cups of hot water at the boy, who shouted at her: "Kau gila ke apa?", meaning "Are you crazy or what?"

Ridzuan heard this and threw more hot water at the boy.

The third incident on Oct 21, 2016 took place when Azlin became angry with the boy and chased him around the living room, throwing nine to 10 cups of hot water at him.

A day later in a fourth incident, Azlin told her husband to "deal with" the boy after he did not want to remove his shorts to take a bath.

Ridzuan hit the boy with a broom before throwing cups of hot water on him. The boy crouched down in the toilet as he was attacked and eventually fell forward and stopped moving.

He was taken to hospital after more than six hours as his parents were afraid of getting arrested. He went into shock during surgery and died of his injuries a day after he was admitted.

The court heard that the hot water poured on the boy was between 70 and 90.5 degrees Celsius. Water temperature higher than 70 degrees Celsius would cause mid to deep burns even with minimal contact, said the judges.

COURT OF APPEAL'S DECISION

Laying out its findings in a 131-page judgment, the Court of Appeal said: "There has been no case where the court has been presented with the issue that this court is faced with."

This was because the prosecution sought to prove Azlin's liability for two criminal acts committed by another person - the second and fourth scalding incidents carried out by Ridzuan - as part of the entire murder charge against her.

The judges said this involved an "expanded interpretation" of common intention, or the intention shared by multiple actors committing a criminal act.

A key issue in their inquiry was whether such an interpretation could be allowed. The judges ultimately found that it was, based on their interpretation of the relevant provision in the Penal Code.

They also found that this interpretation was permissible as it furthered the provision's purpose to deter group crimes and expand the criminal liability of those who commonly intend and participate in group crimes beyond the acts specifically committed by them.

Applying this to the case, the judges said that an aggregation of Azlin's acts and intentions across the four incidents was sufficient to make out the murder charge under Section 300c.

They said it was clear beyond reasonable doubt that Azlin intended to cause the scald injuries in all four incidents, and this satisfied an "expanded interpretation" of common intention.

Azlin not only did not stop Ridzuan from splashing hot water at their son in the second incident, but also chased the boy around the house.

In the fourth incident, she instigated Ridzuan to scald their son and encouraged him during the act, stated the judgment.

FATHER GETS LIFE IMPRISONMENT

In 2020, Justice Thean had found that life imprisonment was not justified for Ridzuan and Azlin as their actions were not the "worst case" of offending under the charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with heated means.

But the Court of Appeal amended Ridzuan's sentence to life imprisonment after finding that the trial judge failed to consider multiple accumulative aggravating factors.

These included the prolonged period of escalating abuse and the cruelty of the abuse, as extensive parts of the boy's body were scalded, including sensitive areas like his face and private parts.

Chief Justice Menon said the distress the boy experienced could only be assessed by considering all the scalding incidents, as they were not carried out on unblemished skin, but skin that was repeatedly and brutally injured.

Another aggravating factor was the fact that Azlin and Ridzuan carried out the acts against a defenceless young child in their own home, and the abuse took place over four months.

The judges also found that Ridzuan's case was devoid of material mitigating factors argued by the defence, such as his relatively young age of 24 at the time of the offences and purported remorse.

They said Ridzuan's defence of low adaptive functioning did not seem reasonable either, as a psychologist testified that his actual adaptive functioning was higher than what his test results suggested, due to the way he self-reported his abilities.

The court said this made Ridzuan's offences one of the worst types of offending that justified life imprisonment. The judges also asked parties to submit on whether the man's caning sentence would still stand.

The appeal was decided by Chief Justice Menon and Justices Andrew Phang, Judith Prakash, Tay Yong Kwang and Steven Chong.

The appeal panel appointed Professor Goh Yihan, Dean of the Singapore Management University's School of Law, to assist in its findings.

Deputy Public Prosecutors Mohamed Faizal, Senthilkumaran Sabapathy and Norine Tan argued the appeal for the prosecution.

Azlin was represented by lawyers Amarick Gill, Cheryl Ng and Lee Zhe Xu, while Ridzuan was represented by lawyers Eugene Thuraisingam and Chooi Jing Yen.