The accused got up and approached the deceasee deceased told the accused that she would “finish her today.” She then tried to hit
the ache accused with a piece of timber she was holding. The accused ran to her house and returned with a kitchen knife. She struggled
with the deceased. The accused then stabbed the deceased on the thigh and head. The deceased fell down and died shortly afterwards.
The accused returned to her house and was later taken to the Nausori Police Station for interview. A post-mortemination of the deceased
shod shows that the cause of death was the stab wounds to the heart. There were 9 wounds found on the body varying in degree from
deep stab wounds to incised wounds.
Under caution the accused confessed to the stabbing, saying that she had only wanted to quieten the deceased down and that she was
tired of Suruj. She said, “I could not take any more that is why I killed her.”
p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The facts were admitted by the accused. The antecedent report tendered by the prosecution shows that the accused is 61 years old,
with 3 grown-up children and that she was divorced in 1979. She is educated up to Class 5 level. There is a record of a previous
conviction in 1976, but this is disputed by the accused and it is disregarded for the purpose of sentencing.
p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Counsel for the Defendant called three witnesses, Nunia Tupou, Brij Bahadur Singh and Shiu Dulari. Nunia Tupou evidence that she knows
thes the accused from the women’s prison where Ms Tupou does volunteer work. She said that the accused has now become a Christian.
Brij Bahadur Singh gave evidence that the deceased Suruj Dulari was a possessive person who was jealous of her sisters. He said that
she had stabbed him with a kitchen knife in 1993, from which incident he still carries a scar. He tendered his medical report of
the injury.
Shiu Dulari is the accused’s and the deceased’s sister. She gave evidence that all the sisters shared a good relationship except for
the deceased who was universally disliked. She said that she and the deceased had not spoken since 1966 and that the deceased was
a trouble-maker with a violent propensity, who had also stabbed one Akosita Rabuli. She said she had not gone to the deceased’s funeral.
In mitigation, counsel referred to the deceased’s criminal record which includes two convictions fomon Assault, and to the incident
of stabbing both in respecespect of Brij Bahadur Singh and of one Akosita Rabuli. He said that the accused suffered from a number
of illnesses including high blood pressure, liver disease and angina. He tendered a medical report to that effect.
He submitted that this was a case in which the deceased haered the accused extreme provocation, and that therefore a non-custodial
sentence was justijustified.
The authorities of sentencing for manslaughter would appear to support his submissions. Thomas in his “Pries of Sentencing” suggests
ests at p.78 that:
“Sentences of less than three years’ imprisonment for manslaughter by reason of provocation in domestic cases will rarely be considered
appropriate unless there is substantial mitigation in addition to the provocation.”
However, local cases suggest that the Fiji courts have considered suspended sentences as being appropriate in cases of graovocation.
In State -ate -v- Mika Buli Criminal Case No. HAC 009/99 the accused killed his brother by punching him during an argument at a jetty, causing the deceased to
fall into the sea, and drown. The accused who was 26 years old was given a 12 month term of imprisonment suspended for two years.
In State -v- Ilaisa Raravula Lesumailepanoni Criminal Case No. HAC 009/99, the deceased died as a result of a punch inflicted by the accused in a drinking incident. The accused
was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended for three years.
In Kim Nam Bae -v- The State Criminal Appeal No. AAU0015/1998S the Court of Appeal coned a sentence of 6 years imprisonment imposed on a man who who had beaten
his wife to death. The sentence was upheld on the ground that the attack was violent and that it was a case of domestic violence
which called for a deterrent sentence. At page 4 of the judgment, the Court of Appeal said:
“The cases demonstrate that the penalty imposed for manslaughter ranges from a suspended sentence where there may have been grave
provocation to 12 years imprisonment where the degree of violence is high and the provocation is minimal.”
p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> There can be no doubt at all that this case is one of grave provocation. The evidence before me reveals a long r relationship between
the the deceased and her sisters which culminated in her death. It reveals a woman so hated, that her own sisters did not attend
her funeral. It reveals that the deceased was a violent person, who fell out not only with her own family, but also with neighbours
and other people in the settlement. It reveals the abusive words used on the accused by the deceased which are insulting and highly
provocative. They, together with the assault by the deceased with a piece of timber, would have been particularly provocative to
an old woman with heart problems and high blood pressure, who had already endured years of abuse from her older sister.
This is indeed an exceptional case of its kind. There ever be any excuse for taking a human life, and the prosecution and the charge
are a refleceflection of that. However, the need to punish, and to express society’s abhorrence to the taking of a life, must be
balanced with the need for a sentence which will reflect the particular facts of the case, and the offender’s personal circumstances.
I note in particular that the accused has already spent 6 months in prison, in remand pending trial.
In all the circumstances I consider that justice requires the imposition of a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended for two
years.
The accused is sentenced accordingly.
Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE
At Suva
4th July 2001
HAC0001d.01s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2001/41.html
