Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

State v Tahir [1992] FJHC 61; Hac0009t.1992b (3 December 1992)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT LABASA)
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.HAC0009 OF 1992

BETWEEN:

STATE

V

MOHAMMED TAHIR

Mr. R. Perera Counsel for the State
Mr. A. Kholi Counsel for the Accused

Date of Hearing: 1st December, 1992
Date of Delivery of Judgment: 3rd December, 1992

SENTENCE

In this case the accused has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of one Jumai son of Rahiman at Batnikama, Labasa on Friday the 24th July l992. After considering all the evidence led by the State, and the depositions I was satisfied that the plea was proper in the circumstances, and I was also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty as charged. Accordingly I convicted him.

The facts of this case are briefly as follows. The accused and his family lived on their cane farm at Batnikama. The deceased, an elderly man of approximately 75 years of age lived with his family on the adjoining cane farm. From the evidence the two families appeared to be related to each other.

For approximately five years preceding the offence the relations between the accused and the deceased's family were not good. Tension had arisen from the use and ownership of a road running through the accused's property. The accused claimed that the road was private belonging to him, while the deceased and his family were of the view that it was a public road open to use generally. These differences of opinion had led to heated arguments in the past.

On the day of the offence the wife of the deceased went to the accused's house to complain that goats belonging to him had strayed into her vegetable garden and destroyed some of the crop. Whilst at the accused's house a heated argument broke out between them. The accused disclaimed ownership of all but one of the goats and denied responsibility for the damage caused. He and the deceased's wife yelled and swore at each other. The accused then took hold of her wrists and began to escort her from his property. As he did so a daughter in law of the deceased led her mother in law away from the accused and urged her not to argue with him.

A short time after that the deceased came to the accused's house and asked him why he had argued with his wife, and taken hold of her by the wrists. An argument then broke out between them over that as well as the damage to the vegetable garden.

The accused's son intervened between his father and the deceased and it was agreed that both parties would go and inspect the damage to the vegetable garden.

The deceased threatened to "break the face" of the accused and, as they left the house compound to examine the vegetable garden the accused and his son held on to the deceased's hands.

Outside the compound, three of the adult sons of the deceased intercepted the accused. One son, Sharif began to assault him and a fight broke out between them. Another son, Tazim picked up a length of wood and moved towards the accused. A friend of both families who was standing near by grabbed the length of wood from Tazim and threw it away. At the same time the accused who was being held by Sharif struggled and broke free and moved back towards his compound. As the accused moved back towards his compound, the deceased who had remained at the scene of the fight pursued the accused with his sons Sharif, Tazim and Jalil. When the accused got near to his gate he was held by Sharif. He picked up a length of wood and swung it in the direction of Sharif. The wood missed Sharif and hit the deceased on the head. The deceased collapsed on the ground and was taken to the hospital. He died two weeks later as a result of the injury sustained from being hit on the head with the length of wood.

The accused is aged 43 years and is married with five children ranging in ages from 23 to l6 years. Three of the children are married and two still reside at the family home. The accused is a cane farmer and is currently indebted to a bank at Labasa in the sum of $8,000, and to relatives in the sum of $2,000. His Counsel submitted that he needed to work his cane farm in order to keep his financial position under control and to prevent his debts from growing beyond manageable proportions.

The accused has already served three months in custody on remand between the 8th of August and the 5th of November when he was released on bail.

Counsel also submitted that the accused is a devoted Muslim of sober and quiet habits whose religious beliefs and practises play a fundamental and central part in his life. It was submitted that he is genuinely remorseful over what has happened and holds to the firm belief that God will punish him ultimately for the death of the deceased. Counsel further submitted that the accused believes that regardless of what sentence is imposed by the court he will suffer for the rest of his life for this offence. Finally Counsel submitted that the accused had an excellent behaviour record whilst in prison.

The unlawful taking of a human life is a tragedy under any circumstances. There is the loss of a beloved husband, father or friend etc. The tragedy becomes more obvious when the death arises out of circumstances that can only be described as unintended and arising in the heat of the moment, which is what appears to have happened in this case.

The fact that a dispute over damage to a vegetable garden ended up in a death is almost beyond comprehension. However, when families or individuals lose sight of common sense and compassion and let petty disputes cloud their vision towards each other then the incomprehensible often occurs. Sadly, this was the case here.

I have taken into account everything that Counsel has submitted on behalf of the accused and have given careful consideration to the facts of the case. I do not doubt that the accused is a deeply religious man, and from his demeanour in court I feel sure that he is already suffering a punishment which is far more effective and oppressive to him personally than anything that a court could impose.

I am satisfied that he is normally a quiet and responsible man of sober habits and that this offence can fairly be categorised as being, "out of character" for him. His degree of culpability is somewhat lessened upon a close examination of the events on the day out of which this offence arose. The fact that the accused was retreating from the affray and being pursued by the deceased and his sons does indicate an attempt by him to end the fight. The picking up and swinging of the length of wood when held by Sharif, while not amounting to self defence can be seen as an attempt to ward off his pursuers and bring to a halt the continuation of the fight. The use of the wood by the accused in these circumstances was not motivated by malice, but rather an attempt to warn his pursuers to break off the chase as he was attempting to retreat. The blow on the head of the deceased was clearly unintended and appears to have come about through him unfortunately getting in the way. Nevertheless, the deceased was struck on the head and later died as a result.

I take into account the circumstances of lessened culpability in the accused, and that he has pleaded guilty to this offence. I note that he has a previous conviction for assault, however it is of l0 years ago and not of the gravity of this offence. I disregard that conviction for the purposes of this sentence.

I take into account all the submissions made on behalf of the accused by his counsel, in particular noting that he has already served three months in prison whilst on remand.

Bearing in mind all that I have said above I sentence the accused to two years imprisonment. However, in view of the mitigating circumstances in this case, including the three months imprisonment that the accused has already served whilst on remand, I suspend the operation of the sentence for a period of two years.

(The requirements of Section 29(4) of the Penal Code explained to the accused).

DAVID E. ASHTON-LEWIS
JUDGE

At Labasa
3rd December, 1992

HAC0009T.92B