What was the charge in Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail [2024] SGCA 22?

In [2024] SGCA 22, Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail, stepfather of the deceased Nursabrina Agustiani Abdullah, claimed trial to murder under s 300(c) punishable under s 302(2) of the Penal Code, for causing intra-abdominal bleeding that resulted in the Victim's death on 2 September 2018.

Which court decided PP v Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail [2024] SGCA 22 and when?

[2024] SGCA 22 was decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 1 July 2024, with Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the grounds of decision alongside Sundaresh Menon CJ and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD, disposing of Criminal Appeals Nos 5, 19 and 23 of 2022.

[2024] SGCA 22 — PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Muhammad Salihin Bin Ismail

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

1 July 2024

Case summary

Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail [2024] SGCA 22

CA/CCA 5/2022; CA/CCA 19/2022; CA/CCA 23/2022

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Justice Tay Yong Kwang):

Outcome: The Court of Appeal allowed the Prosecution’s appeal in CA/CCA 5/2022 against the acquittal of the accused on the murder charge under s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) and convicted the accused on the murder charge. The Court of Appeal made no order in relation to CA/CCA 19/2022 and CA/CCA 23/2022.

Background

1 Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail (“Salihin”), the stepfather of the deceased, Nursabrina Agustiani Abdullah (the “Victim”), claimed trial to a charge of murder under s 300(c), punishable under s 302(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”) for causing the death of the Victim. The charge arose from two incidents on 1 September 2018, during which Salihin allegedly punched and kicked the Victim in her abdomen, leading to intra-abdominal bleeding, which resulted in the Victim’s death on 2 September 2018.

2 Salihin was the Victim’s stepfather. He is married to the Victim’s biological mother, Syabilla Syamien Riyadi (“Syabilla”). At the time of the incidents in the murder charge, the Victim was slightly more than four years old. Salihin and Syabilla also had two biological twin boys born in November 2016 (“the Twins”). They were about one year and nine months old at the material time. Salihin, Syabilla, the Victim and the Twins lived together in a rental flat (“the Flat”).

3 At about 10.00am on 1 September 2018, Salihin noticed a puddle of urine outside the toilet of the Flat. Salihin became angry because he thought that the Victim, who had already been toilet-trained, was misbehaving. Salihin called the Victim to the toilet and placed her on the toilet bowl. While it was undisputed that Salihin, after having placed the Victim on the toilet bowl, applied some force on the Victim’s abdomen with his knuckles, the parties disputed the nature of this force. Specifically, the contention was whether the force applied by Salihin on the Victim’s abdomen consisted of punches, as alleged by the Prosecution, or whether it was mere nudges, as the Defence alleged. The force was applied to allegedly stop the Victim from getting off the toilet bowl. After this incident, Salihin went out of the toilet and left the Victim there alone.

4 Later that day, at about 3.00pm, the Victim indicated to Salihin that she wanted to go to the toilet. Salihin asked the Victim to go to the toilet to urinate on her own. The Victim went into the toilet and left the toilet a while later. After she left the toilet, Salihin went into the toilet and saw that the Victim had urinated again on the floor in front of the toilet bowl. He became angry, called the Victim over and questioned her about the urine on the floor.

5 Salihin then pushed the Victim on the left shoulder, causing her to fall sideways to the floor. While the Victim was lying on her side on the floor, Salihin kicked the Victim’s abdomen twice with his right leg while barefoot. This part of the 3.00pm incident was undisputed. Salihin admitted to pushing the Victim and kicking her abdomen twice during that incident. After the kicks, Salihin picked the Victim up and placed her on the toilet bowl. It was undisputed that after Salihin placed the Victim on the toilet bowl, he applied force on the Victim’s abdomen with his knuckles a few times. However, there was again disagreement between the parties as to whether the force applied consisted of punches or nudges.

6 On the night of 1 September 2018 and in the early hours of 2 September 2018, the Victim vomited periodically. On 2 September 2018, at about 8.00am, Salihin brought the Victim to the toilet, where she tried to vomit into the toilet bowl. Noticing that the Victim had difficulty vomiting, Salihin used his index finger to ease her vomiting. The Victim then vomited and became unconscious. Salihin carried the Victim out of the toilet and informed Syabilla that the Victim was no longer breathing. He asked Syabilla to call for an ambulance. Syabilla asked Salihin to perform cardiac pulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”) on the Victim, and he did so for about 15 minutes until the paramedics arrived at about 9.28am. The Victim was conveyed to hospital. On medical examination, she was not breathing, and there was no heartbeat. After resuscitation efforts failed, the Victim was pronounced dead at 10.12am on 2 September 2018.

7 According to the autopsy report dated 17 September 2018 prepared by Dr Gilbert Lau (“Dr Lau”), the forensic pathologist, the certified cause of death was “haemoperitoneum due to blunt force trauma of the abdomen”.

8 On 1 March 2022, after trial, the Judge of the General Division of the High Court (the “Trial Judge”) acquitted Salihin on the s 300(c) charge. Invoking the court’s powers under s 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed), the Trial Judge amended the charge to a lesser offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under s 325 of the PC and convicted Salihin accordingly. Salihin was sentenced to nine years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, with the commencement of the imprisonment term backdated to the date of his arrest on 3 September 2018.

9 In CA/CCA 5/2022 (“CA 5”), the Prosecution appealed against the Trial Judge’s decision to acquit Salihin on the s 300(c) charge. CA/CCA 19/2022 (“CA 19”) and CA/CCA 23/2022 (“CA 23”) are the appeals by the Prosecution and by Salihin, respectively, against the sentence imposed for the s 325 Charge.

Decision

The other purported contributory causes

10 The parties’ contention about whether Salihin punched or nudged the Victim during the 10.00am and 3.00pm incidents was an irrelevant argument. Once it was proved that the blunt force which caused the Victim’s injuries, whether in the form of kicks, punches or nudges, originated from the accused, the conclusion that Salihin’s acts were a cause of the intra-abdominal injuries was inescapable. The real factual question was whether there were other contributory causes of the intra-abdominal injuries which were not attributable to Salihin: at [23].

11 The Court rejected the Defence’s submission that there were other alleged contributory causes of the intra-abdominal injuries. The incident where the Twins bounced on the Victim’s abdomen a few times, which took place at around 7.00pm on 1 September 2018 was not a contributory cause of the intra-abdominal injuries. The Trial Judge’s findings based on the expert evidence were not plainly wrong as the evidence of both Dr Lau and Cheah Sue Mei (“Dr Cheah”) had specifically considered how the weight of the Twins and the bouncing motion on the Victim would have factored in the assessment: at [35] to [38].

12 The Court upheld the Trial Judge’s finding that Salihin’s incorrect application of CPR on the Victim’s abdomen as opposed to her chest and using two hands instead of two fingers, as is recommended for a young child like the Victim, had contributed negligibly to the intra-abdominal injuries. The Court accepted Dr Lau’s opinion regarding the extensiveness of the internal bleeding observed in the Victim which could not be explained by the misapplication of CPR but which could only be explained by the kicks and/or punches inflicted by Salihin on the Victim: at [39] to [41].

13 The intra-abdominal pressure caused by the Victim’s vomiting in the night of 1 September 2018 and in the early hours of 2 September 2018 also did not amount to a contributory cause of the Victim’s intra-abdominal injuries. The Victim’s vomiting was a natural symptom and consequence of the injuries inflicted by Salihin’s kicks, and, therefore, it could not be regarded as an independent cause of the Victim’s intra-abdominal injuries: at [42] to [44].

Observations on the question of whether the Prosecution’s case necessarily fails where the court is not able to identify and isolate the injuries inflicted by the accused from injuries arising from other causes

14 The Court observed that it was not necessary to consider the point of law regarding the approach to be taken in identifying the “bodily injury” for the test as set out in Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, where there are multiple causes of the fatal injury. This is because this case did not concern multiple causes of the injuries once the Defence’s alleged contributory causes had been rejected: at [45] to [46].

The intra-abdominal injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death

15 The Court upheld the Trial Judge’s finding that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Even if a Class II haemorrhage injury did not inevitably lead to death, the question was whether there was a sufficient probability of death ensuing in the ordinary course of nature, not that it must inevitably happen. The probability of death is to be determined without reference to the availability of timely medical intervention or the possibility that the victim may have survived if medical treatment had been rendered. All that the Prosecution had to show was that the evidence pointed to a high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature. Nothing in the Defence’s case raised a reasonable doubt concerning this high probability of death from the intra-abdominal injuries: at [47] to [50].

Whether Salihin intended to inflict the intra-abdominal injuries found on the Victim

16 What is required under s 300(c) of the PC is that the accused person had the requisite intention to cause the particular injury that was in fact inflicted on the victim. In determining whether the accused person had the requisite intention to cause the particular injury actually inflicted, the focus of the inquiry is directed at the nature and the character of the physical acts done by the accused person. Once it was established that the accused person had intended to inflict the particular bodily injury found on the victim, there was no need for the Prosecution to go further to show that the accused person knew, much less that he intended, the specific medical consequences of his actions: at [53] and [54].

17 On the totality of the evidence, it was clear that Salihin intended to kick the Victim in the stomach because he wanted to teach her a lesson. Salihin accepted under cross-examination that when he kicked the Victim, he had done so to cause her stomach pain in order to teach her a lesson. The statement of 3 September 2018 also put it beyond argument that Salihin intended to inflict the injuries found on the Victim. The photographs of the re-enactment of the incident demonstrated the approximate size of the Victim, her proximity to Salihin and their relative positions within the toilet. These also pointed firmly to the conclusion that the kicks to the Victim’s stomach in the very limited space in the toilet could not have occurred by chance: at [61] to [62].

18 Even if it was accepted that Salihin did not intend to connect with any particular part of the Victim's body, Salihin did intend to kick the Victim who was prone on the floor a short distance from him. In these circumstances, the highest case which could be mounted was that Salihin was indifferent as to which part of her body he struck. If Salihin had kicked the Victim with force, not bothering which part of her body his kicks would land on, then he must have intended to kick her wherever his kicks happened to land on: at [63].

19 The Trial Judge’s conclusion that Salihin did not intend to strike with sufficient force to cause the injuries found on the Victim was a consequence of his mistaken view that it was relevant to consider whether Salihin knew or intended to inflict the specific medical consequences of his actions. In any case, the conclusion that Salihin did not kick the victim with the intention to strike with sufficient force to cause the intra-abdominal injuries would have been inconsistent with Salihin’s description in his statements to the police that the kicks were “hard kicks” and “forceful”. Salihin also admitted that when he kicked the Victim, he wanted to “intentionally” cause her stomach pain to discipline her and teach her a lesson: at [65].

20 An angry person who kills another spontaneously in a fit of rage is fully liable for his actions unless he can invoke the defences specified in the Penal Code, such as private defence or the partial defences of sudden fight or grave and sudden provocation and/or diminished responsibility. The Defence did not rely on any of the defences specified by law: at [67].

21 The Court allowed the Prosecution’s appeal in CA 5 against the acquittal of Salihin on the murder charge under s 300(c) of the Penal Code and convicted Salihin on the said murder charge. Salihin was sentenced to life imprisonment and to receive 12 strokes of the cane, with the imprisonment term backdated to 3 September 2018, the date of Salihin’s arrest. In the light of the foregoing, the appeals against sentence in CA 19 and 23 became irrelevant as they were premised on Salihin’s conviction on the amended charge under s 325 of the Penal Code. The Court accordingly made no order in CA 19 and 23: at [68] to [69].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Muhammad Salihin Bin Ismail

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (7)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Summary

What was the charge in Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail [2024] SGCA 22?

Which court decided PP v Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail [2024] SGCA 22 and when?

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (6)

Cited By (1)

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

Sentencing outcomes for this offence

Judgment