Mother who abused 5-year-old son to death jailed for life, after court rejects prosecution's appeal for death sentence

SINGAPORE — A woman convicted of murdering her five-year-old son through various acts of abuse was on Tuesday (Oct 18) sentenced to life imprisonment, after the apex court decided that she should not receive the death penalty.

Azlin Arujunah’s husband, Ridzuan Mega Abdul Rahman, had already been sentenced to a life term in July. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal further ruled that he should not be caned.

Both parents abused their son over a span of three months in 2016, scalding him with hot water on four occasions until he died on Oct 23 that year. He suffered severe injuries such as second- to third-degree burns over two-thirds of his body, nasal bone fractures and extensive bruises.

The boy cannot be named to protect the identity of his surviving siblings. 

Azlin and Ridzuan, now aged 30, were originally acquitted of murder and sentenced to 27 years’ jail each after a High Court trial.

The prosecution then appealed against the sentences imposed on Azlin and Ridzuan. At the time, prosecutors sought life imprisonment in both cases, as well as for Azlin to be convicted of murder by common intention.

In July, the Court of Appeal sentenced Ridzuan to the maximum term of life imprisonment. They also convicted Azlin of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code, but did not sentence her just yet.

Following this, the prosecution called for Azlin to be given the death sentence.

In a written judgement on Tuesday, five judges in the Court of Appeal agreed that objective, reasonable members of the community would find Azlin’s abuse of her son to be cruel and inhumane.

They wrote: "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, in rejecting the prosecution’s arguments for a death sentence, the judges found that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Azlin knew her son would likely die from the repeated scalding incidents.

Because of this, the apex court said they were not satisfied the death penalty — imposed when offenders show viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life — was warranted.

WHAT HAPPENED

Both parents were originally charged with murder with common intention, along with other charges related to the fatal abuse.

This murder charge was premised on four acts of burning or scalding committed in the couple’s one-room rental flat from Oct 15 to 22 in 2016. The boy died shortly after that.

Following a High Court trial that ended in mid-2020, Azlin and Ridzuan were acquitted of murder and sentenced to 27 years’ jail each on reduced charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon or means. Life imprisonment is the maximum punishment for this offence.

Azlin was given one more year behind bars in lieu of caning, taking her total jail sentence to 28 years, while Ridzuan was further sentenced to 24 strokes of the cane.

High Court judge Valerie Thean found that the element of common intention in their murder charges was not sufficiently proven, since not all of the incidents involved both parents.

The judge also declined to impose life imprisonment, saying it was not appropriate because medical evidence could not determine which injuries arose from which incidents.

APEX COURT'S DECISION

On Tuesday, the apex court — led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon — referred to the precedent case of Kho Jabing, which laid out sentencing guidelines for murder.

Kho, a Sarawakian from Malaysia, was hanged in 2016 after he killed a Chinese construction worker during a robbery by bashing the victim on the head repeatedly with a tree branch.

In Kho’s case, the death penalty is appropriate when an offender exhibits viciousness or demonstrates a blatant disregard for human life.

The appellate judges noted that while cruelty or a display of inhumane treatment is a relevant sentencing factor, the courts should not be distracted by the gruesomeness of a crime scene in determining whether to impose the death penalty.

“Rather, it must, as we have already noted, consider all the circumstances of the case, including the offender’s age, motive and intelligence, to determine whether the offender has acted in a way which exhibits such a blatant disregard for human life as to outrage the feelings of the community.”

The judges considered Justice Thean’s finding that Azlin did not wholly understand the likelihood of death stemming from her actions.

In her statements to the police, she said she thought the boy’s scald injuries would heal on their own, citing her own childhood experience of being scalded by her parents. She also applied cream on the boy’s peeling skin, among other acts.

The prosecution, led by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir and Deputy Public Prosecutor Norine Tan, challenged this finding in their appeal.

They argued that it would be obvious to anyone that the boy’s extensive scalding would potentially be deadly and that Azlin saw the boy’s “dreadful condition” firsthand.

When the boy died in hospital, his skin had turned yellow, wet and raw, with parts peeling off.

The Court of Appeal disagreed that the evidence proved this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Azlin’s murder charge meant that she only needed to intend to cause the boy’s injuries. However, she could — and apparently did — hold this intention without comprehending there was a real possibility this could be fatal, the judges found.

The judges wrote: “None of this detracts from the horrific, unacceptable and vicious nature of the injuries. Azlin was the mother of the deceased and for her to intentionally commit the various acts of abuse against her young son is immensely disturbing.

“But we reiterate the point we made earlier that the yardstick at law for deciding to impose the death penalty must be one that is rational and principled rather than one that is visceral.”

As for Ridzuan’s sentence, the prosecution argued for 12 strokes of the cane along with life imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal rejected the submissions for caning, agreeing with Justice Thean that Ridzuan shared a very similar degree of culpability with Azlin and should not be given a more onerous sentence.

The five-judge apex court panel comprised Chief Justice Menon along with Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang, Judith Prakash, Tay Yong Kwang and Steven Chong.

Azlin was defended by Mr Amarick Gill and Ms Cheryl Ng, while Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Chooi Jing Yen represented Ridzuan.