Niranjan v Public Prosecutor: Voluntarily Causing Hurt & Propensity for Reform

Niranjan s/o Muthupalani appealed to the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore against the sentences imposed by the District Judge for two charges of voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of the Penal Code. The charges stemmed from an incident at a bar on 13 March 2020, where Niranjan assaulted two individuals. See Kee Oon J dismissed the appeal, finding that the District Judge did not err in declining to call for a probation suitability report and that the sentences were not manifestly excessive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Niranjan appeals against his sentence for voluntarily causing hurt. The court dismisses the appeal, finding no error in the original sentence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWon
Nicholas Khoo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Andrew Chia of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Niranjan s/o MuthupalaniAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nicholas KhooAttorney-General’s Chambers
Andrew ChiaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ashvin HariharanKalidass Law Corporation
Kalidass MurugaiyanKalidass Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges under s 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to two individuals.
  2. The incident occurred at "Stickies Bar" on 13 March 2020.
  3. The appellant was subject to supervision under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act at the time of the offences.
  4. The appellant had a misunderstanding with one of the victims, V1, near the smoking corner.
  5. The appellant assaulted V1 by punching and kicking him, and slapped V2 when he attempted to intervene.
  6. V1 suffered blunt trauma to his left eye and V2 suffered a contusion wound over his left cheek and chipped teeth.
  7. The District Judge declined to call for a Probation Suitability Report, finding that the appellant was not suitable for probation.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Niranjan s/o Muthupalani v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9192 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 181
  2. Public Prosecutor v Niranjan s/o Muthupalani, , [2022] SGDC 291

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Police Supervision Order issued
Police Supervision Order varied
Incident at Stickies Bar
Appellant charged in State Courts
First Criminal Case Management System discussion conducted
Appellant indicated he wished to plead guilty
Appellant stated he wished to claim trial
Pre-trial conference held to take trial dates
Trial dates vacated due to Counsel’s unavailability
Appellant changed Counsel and matter adjourned for psychiatric report
Appellant indicated he was willing to plead guilty to a revised Statement of Facts
Appellant pleaded guilty to the charges against him
Appellant sentenced to imprisonment
Case re-mentioned with charges amended; appellant reaffirmed plea of guilt
Appellant filed notice of appeal against his sentence
Hearing of the appeal
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Suitability for Probation
    • Outcome: The court found that the District Judge rightly found that probation was not a viable sentencing option.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Propensity for reform
      • Exceptional circumstances
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 5 SLR 671
      • [2018] 5 SLR 1289
      • [2020] 4 SLR 1412
      • [2016] 1 SLR 334
  2. Manifest Excessiveness of Sentence
    • Outcome: The court found that the sentences imposed by the District Judge were not manifestly excessive.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 5 SLR 526

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Voluntarily Causing Hurt

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing Guidelines

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Niranjan s/o MuthupalaniDistrict CourtYes[2022] SGDC 291SingaporeThe judgment being appealed from.
Low Song Chye v Public Prosecutor and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2019] 5 SLR 526SingaporeCited for the two-step sentencing band framework for offences under section 323 of the Penal Code.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Cheng Ji AlvinSingapore High CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 671SingaporeCited for the principle that rehabilitation is not the dominant sentencing consideration for offenders above the age of majority unless they demonstrate an extremely strong propensity for reform or there exist other exceptional circumstances.
A Karthik v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1289SingaporeCited for the principle that rehabilitation is not the dominant operative concern unless the offender concerned happens to demonstrate an extremely strong propensity for reform or there exist other exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of probation.
Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan TerenceSingapore High CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 1412SingaporeCited for the three-limbed framework for assessing whether an offender has demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform.
Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie BoazSingapore High CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 334SingaporeCited for the principle that the nature or gravity of the offence may displace rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration.
Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[2019] 5 SLR 887SingaporeCited for the principle that a psychiatric report is unhelpful if it fails to set out underlying evidence or details of the analytical process or reasons supporting its conclusions.
Wong Tian Jun De Beers v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[2022] 4 SLR 805SingaporeCited for the principle that expert witnesses owe a duty to the court to ensure that their evidence is reliable and fit for court use, and courts will not hesitate to reject evidence which is not fit for purpose.
Public Prosecutor v Kong Peng YeeSingapore Court of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 295SingaporeCited for the principle that the existence of a mental disorder on the part of the offender is always a relevant factor in the sentencing process.
Public Prosecutor v Chaw Aiang WahSingapore High CourtYes[2004] SGHC 164SingaporeCited for the principle that culprits who resort to violent self-help to settle scores must be prepared to face deterrent sentences.
GCO v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 1402SingaporeCited for the principle that the offender’s potential for rehabilitation was eclipsed by deterrence given the serious nature of the offence of outrage of modesty.
Haleem Bathusa bin Abdul Rahim v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[2023] SGHC 41SingaporeCited for the approach of extrapolating the indicative imprisonment term in each band by 1.5 times in a proportionate and linear fashion.
Public Prosecutor v Fei YiSingapore District CourtYes[2022] SGDC 81SingaporeCited for the approach of extrapolating the indicative imprisonment term in each band by 1.5 times in a proportionate and linear fashion.
Chia Kim Heng Frederick v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 361SingaporeCited for the principle that a discount of up to one-third of the sentence may be given for plead guilty cases.
Tan Sai Tiang v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 33SingaporeCited for the principle that an offender’s good character is most relevant where rehabilitation is the main sentencing consideration and there is no countervailing need for retribution, deterrence or prevention to feature in sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Bibianna Lim Poh SuanSingapore Magistrate CourtYes[2020] SGMC 14SingaporeCited as an example where the existing Low Song Chye framework had potentially been misapplied.
Public Prosecutor v Leo MonaSingapore District CourtYes[2020] SGDC 135SingaporeCited as an example where the existing Low Song Chye framework had potentially been misapplied.
Public Prosecutor v Ng Koon PohSingapore Magistrate CourtYes[2022] SGMC 50SingaporeCited as an example where the existing Low Song Chye framework had potentially been misapplied.
Public Prosecutor v Muhamad Naqiuddin Khan Bin Jhangir Khan and othersSingapore District CourtYes[2021] SGDC 269SingaporeCited as an example where double weight appeared to have been given to an offender’s guilty plea through the application of the sentencing ranges in the Low Song Chye framework and allowing a further discount for the offender’s guilty plea.
Public Prosecutor v Ainon binte Mohamed AliSingapore Magistrate CourtYes[2020] SGMC 7SingaporeCited as an example where double weight appeared to have been given to an offender’s guilty plea through the application of the sentencing ranges in the Low Song Chye framework and allowing a further discount for the offender’s guilty plea.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 323Singapore
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) ss 30(1)Singapore
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) ss 33(1)Singapore
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) s 35Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Voluntarily causing hurt
  • Probation
  • Intermittent Explosive Disorder
  • Police Supervision Order
  • Sentencing
  • Remorse
  • Deterrence

15.2 Keywords

  • voluntarily causing hurt
  • probation
  • intermittent explosive disorder
  • police supervision
  • sentencing
  • criminal law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sentencing95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure85
Hurt80
Adult offenders70
Offences60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal Procedure