PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Muhammad Salihin Bin Ismail

Facts

Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail was tried in Criminal Case No 6 of 2021 for murdering his young stepdaughter under s 300(c) of the Penal Code. On 1 September 2018, while her mother was at work, he twice found that the child had urinated outside the toilet. At about 3.00pm, angry, he pushed her to the ground and kicked her abdomen twice while barefoot, which he admitted. On both occasions he also pressed his knuckles against her abdomen while she sat on the toilet bowl; the Prosecution said these were punches, while he said they were nudges to stop her getting off. That evening she complained of stomach pain and vomited, and she died the next morning. The forensic pathologist found the cause of death to be internal bleeding in the abdomen from blunt force trauma.

The Defence argued that other events, the twins bouncing on her abdomen, her vomiting and his CPR, contributed to the injuries, that he lacked the intention required, and that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Issues

1. Whether the accused punched or merely nudged the child's abdomen while she sat on the toilet bowl
2. Whether, where there are multiple causes of a fatal injury, the bodily injury for the Virsa Singh test must be the injury the accused actually inflicted
3. Whether the accused intended to inflict the intra-abdominal injuries when he kicked the child
4. Whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death

Holding

The High Court acquitted the accused of the murder charge and, under s 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code, convicted him instead of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under s 325 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, backdated to 3 September 2018, with two other charges taken into consideration.

Reasoning

The court accepted the accused's account that he used his knuckles only as a barrier, giving limited weight to the single early statement using the word "punch" against his later consistent statements and the risk that real force would have toppled the child into the bowl. Only the two kicks were relevant.

The court agreed with the Defence that, where several causes contribute to a fatal injury, the Virsa Singh test must be applied to the injury the accused actually inflicted, since one cannot ask whether he intended an injury he did not cause. On the medical evidence, however, the other suggested causes were negligible, so the whole of the abdominal injuries was attributed to the kicks.

The Prosecution failed on intention. The kicks were deliberate and forceful, but the court found they were a spontaneous outburst of anger, landing on the abdomen only because that part of the child lay nearest his foot after she fell. He did not intend to strike that area with enough force to cause such injuries. His later questions to the child about where it hurt showed he did not know where the kicks had landed. The court found he said "targeted" in his first statement but gave it little weight.

For completeness, the court found the injuries sufficient to cause death, as the classification of blood loss relied on by the Defence assumed timely medical treatment. As he lacked any intention or knowledge required for culpable homicide, the lesser s 325 offence was substituted.

On sentence, applying Public Prosecutor v BDB [2018] 1 SLR 127, the starting point was eight years and 12 strokes. The child's vulnerability, his abuse of trust and the charges taken into consideration were aggravating; delay in seeking help was rejected as a factor, and genuine remorse was accepted.

From the judgment