Public Prosecutor v Darabi Golshaniiran Mohammad

Facts

Darabi Golshaniiran Mohammad, a 45-year-old Iranian national living in Singapore on a dependent pass, faced two charges in Magistrate's Arrest Case No 908063 of 2025 of outraging the modesty of a 14-year-old boy under s 354(1) of the Penal Code 1871. Both lived in the same condominium. On 3 February 2025 the boy agreed to share the sauna with the accused, who asked his name and age. When the boy went to a urinal nearby, the accused followed, asked "can I touch?" and, though the boy shook his head, grabbed his exposed penis for a few seconds; this charge was taken into consideration. Later, as the boy went to change in an accessible toilet cubicle, the accused entered before the door could be shut, closed it, crouched, pulled down the boy's shorts and licked his penis for several seconds. The accused pleaded guilty to this second charge.

The boy discarded his clothes, could not sleep, told his father the next morning and made a police report. For months he broke down before sleeping several times a month, became wary of strangers and was on high alert near toilets. A gag order protects his identity. Both sides agreed the case fell at the lower end of Band 3; the defence sought 15 months and no caning.

Issues

1. Which sentencing band and starting point applied under the Kunasekaran framework as adjusted for the higher maximum term.
2. Whether caning should be imposed and at what level.
3. How the taken-into-consideration charge and the early guilty plea should adjust the sentence.

Holding

The court sentenced the accused to 18 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.

Reasoning

Applying Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor [2018] 4 SLR 580, with its ranges revised upwards after the maximum term rose from two to three years from 1 March 2022, the court found the sexual exploitation high: skin-on-skin oral contact was not "fleeting" in intrusiveness even if brief. Aggravating circumstances included the boy's age, which the accused knew; the earlier refusal ignored and escalated; his striking whenever the boy was isolated; persistence, including asking whether the boy would return next day; and cornering him in a cubicle in his own residential compound. Harm was moderate, as admitted in the statement of facts. Defence counsel's 15 months ignored the higher maximum. Stressing deterrence, the court took 23 months on a claim-trial basis as the starting point.

On caning, the court drew on GBR v Public Prosecutor [2018] 3 SLR 1048 and set lower starting points for s 354(1) than for s 354(2), at least four strokes for Band 3, within the six-stroke limit of a Magistrate's Court. The defence gave no real reason to avoid caning.

The charge taken into consideration added three months, to 26 months. The Stage 1 plea, which spared the boy from testifying, earned a 30% reduction to 18 months. Being untraced was neutral. The result was in line with Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar s/o Bala [2024] SGHC 265, the closest precedent, where the distinguishing factors largely offset one another.

From the judgment