As an adult, Piang took up a job as a construction worker, but she quit as the salary was low and she wanted to earn more to support her family, after hearing from some other villagers that the wages of employment in Singapore were higher.

The CCTV cameras, originally set by Chelvam to monitor his two children and his maid, had captured most of the physical abuse that occurred in the last month before Piang died.

The retrieved footage showed Gaiyathiri pouring cold water on Piang, slapping, pushing, punching, kicking her and stomping on her while the maid was on the floor.

At one point, such abuses happened in the presence of Gaiyathiri's infant son, who was playing games at one side while Piang was subjected to physical torture nearby.

Gaiyathiri also asked for the court to impose a gag order and disallow the newspapers to report her name for the sake of her two children and protect them from any social ostracisation.

He asked for the court to be lenient and impose a much lower sentence of eight to nine years’ imprisonment for culpable homicide given her psychiatric condition and stated that it was due to the victim being unhygienic that Gaiyathiri was stressed over the additional burden of taking care of her children and coping with their illnesses, which she claimed were caused by the lack of cleanliness on the part of the maid.

He hoped that rehabilitation was the major principle behind his client's sentence so that she and the other mothers suffering from postpartum depression could have a "healing effect" from the outcome, and stated that the four previous maids were not abused by Gaiyathiri.

However, the prosecution did not relent and maintained their firm stance to press for a life sentence on Gaiyathiri, stating that it was precisely due to her mental disorders that her original murder charge was reduced.

In response to the gag order application, the DPP also said that Gaiyathiri's children should not be used as an excuse for a lighter punishment given that the accused was the one who committed an extremely serious and shocking crime and it thus became a high-profile case that attracted significant media attention.

In his judgement, Justice See described the untimely death of Piang Ngaih Don as "among the worst cases of culpable homicide", given that the unfortunate maid was extensively subjected to both psychological and physical harm before she died.

Her judgement was significantly impaired by the mental disorders she had, which contributed to her offences, and she was responding to medical treatment with a diagnosis that she no longer posed a danger to the public or a risk at re-offending.

The judge also ruled that based on the balance of mitigating and aggravating factors, even though he did not feel desirous of a life sentence in Gaiyathiri's case, he found that a long, extended period of incarceration should be warranted to reflect "signal societal outrage and abhorrence".

Justice See addressed Gaiyathiri that had it not been her mental disorders influencing her into committing the crimes, he would have sentenced her to spend the rest of her natural life in prison without hesitation.

[17][22] From the account of Gaiyathiri's life prior to her killing of her maid, she was said to be so obsessed with cleanliness that she wanted her former husband to drive her to a clean toilet from her workplace every day.

Another medical expert, Dr Annabelle Chow, posited that Gaiyathiri might have poor sleep and a short temper induced by depression, and had an inability to control her anger.

DPP Mohamed Faizal, who was assisted by Senthilkumaran Sabapathy and Sean Teh in making the submissions, argued that it was entirely implausible for Gaiyathiri to have any form of contact with Piang's relatives since she did not have access to mobile devices from the time she was first locked away in jail.

The prosecutor also pointed out these attempts demonstrated Gaiyathiri's complete lack of repentance and/or remorse for committing one of the most heinous instances of abuse and culpable homicide in Singapore's history.

In his own words, DPP Mohamed Faizal made a description of Gaiyathiri's application for additional evidence: "It is a desperate and audacious (not to mention, belated) attempt to deflect blame to everyone except herself for her present predicament, in the hope that doing so would allow her to escape her just desserts in the form of a sufficiently stiff sentence.

They stated that they agreed with all the findings of the trial judge See Kee Onn that Gaiyathiri was completely unremorseful or unrepentant over Piang Ngaih Don's murder, given that she sought to justify her conduct against the victim with her psychiatric disorders, and continued to "blame anything and anyone but herself" for her atrocities.

The judges also rebutted that she was not mistreated in prison and pointed out that Gaiyathiri was given legal representation and not pressured into pleading guilty in contrast to her claims, since it was likely an afterthought she concocted over an unfavourable sentence.

In DPP Sabapathy's words, Piang's life was a "living nightmare", which was in no small part from Prema's contribution to the daily abuse suffered by the Myanmar maid.

[38] On the other hand, Prema's lawyer Rai Satish asked for ten years' jail, claiming that his client, who was a "loving grandmother", had been unfairly painted as a "vile and wicked person", since she had only committed the abuse due to her frustration towards Piang after hearing her daughter's complaints, and that there were also instances where Prema did show some kindness to Piang by giving her food and putting first aid on her wounds.

Satish stated that Prema did not deserve a long and crushing sentence, as it may cut off her time and opportunity to be with her grandchildren, and that she showed regret for the crime after spending about six years and six months in remand.

[40] On the same day, Principal District Judge Toh Han Li aligned himself with the prosecution's arguments and sentenced 64-year-old Prema S. Naraynasamy to 14 years' imprisonment.

In his own words, Judge Toh described the degree of cruelty and cold-hearted conduct of Prema in the case: “The deceased (Piang) is no longer with us to speak of her suffering but footages from the CCTV showed the shocking picture of the abuse and how emaciated and weak she was before her passing.”[42] Judge Toh also stated that there was a need to deter like-minded offenders from further perpetuating maid abuse, and on a balance of probabilities, a sentence of fourteen years was not a crushing sentence in Prema's case.

[51] On 20 July 2023, 44-year-old Kevin Chelvam, who intended to contest all five charges, was officially brought to trial at the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, with District Judge Teoh Ai Lin appointed to preside the hearing.

Due to the aggravating circumstances of the case, the Attorney General of Singapore also personally directed the prosecutors to proceed with the highest and most serious criminal charge possible for both Prema and Gaiyathiri, who were arrested and investigated for murder.

"[3][2] A documentary was made by Al Jazeera that filmed the concept and plight of foreign maids in Singapore, and it was released in September 2016, two months after Piang Ngaih Don died.

Nearly five long years after the Bishan flat murder, the public interest was renewed when Gaiyathiri, the first of the three to stand trial, was brought to court to enter her plea of guilt.

[69] In light of Gaiyathiri's trial, the Government of Singapore announced that to avoid similar crimes against maids from happening again, there will be a review of three areas, such as safeguards against abusive employers, the reporting system for doctors, and the involvement of community and partner organisations.