IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 032 OF 2014

STATE

vs

RAKESH CHANDRA

Counsel : Ms Madanavosa P. for the State
Mr Raman Singh. for the Accused 
Dates of Trial : 5/10/15; 6/10/15; 7/10/15; 8/10/15 & 9/10/2015
Summing Up : 12/10/2015
Judgment : 13/10/2015

JUDGMENT

[1]	The Accused Rakesh Chandra is charged under the following two counts:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence 

Rape-	contrary to Section 207(1) and (2)(a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009

Particulars of the Offence
Rakesh Chandra on the 1st day of January 2014 at Laucala Beach Estate, Suva in the Central Division, had carnal knowledge of Kimberly Ragini Chris, without her consent.

 SECOND COUNT 

Statement of Offence
Rape-	contrary to Section 207(1) and (2)(b) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009

Particulars of the Offence
Rakesh Chandra on the 1st day of January 2014 at Laucala Beach Estate, Suva in the Central Division, penetrated the vagina of Kimberly Ragini Chris, with his fingers without her consent.

[2]	Upon his plea of not guilty, the trial commenced and Prosecution led three witnesses while he gave evidence on his behalf.

[3]	After the summing up, the three assessors unanimously found the accused guilty of the two counts against him.

[4]	I direct myself in accordance with the law and evidence which I discussed in my summing up to the assessors.

[5]	Prosecution case was essentially based on the evidence of the complainant. The accused did not dispute having sexual intercourse with the complainant and also touching her vagina with his hand. His claim was that the complainant had consented to have sex with him. He had played with her vagina with his hand and thereafter had vaginal intercourse with the complainant, with her consent, inside his parked car. 

[6]	The complainant, in her evidence denied consensual sex with the accused. She was emotionally distressed due to an incident with her boyfriend. The accused posed as one of his friends and offered her dinner, when they met as seawall at Nasese, as she was without a meal. He had then taken her to two Night Clubs and thereafter taken her along Princess Road in his car to a cliff and said "if we can't live together we shall die together". 
[7]	He had threatened her with death and having taken her to a bush area at a dead-end of a road, forcibly inserted his hand into her vagina. He had then adjusted her passenger seat to a reclining position and then mounted on her. Thereafter, the accused having taken off her undergarment had penetrated her vagina with his penis. She begged him not to. He continued until ejaculation. He had subsequently dropped her off at her house on the same night.

[8]	Although the accused claimed to have had consensual sex, he disputed the sequence of events as narrated by the complainant in her evidence. He had offered his own version of events. The assessors have opted to accept evidence of the complainant as the credible and reliable version and have obviously rejected his evidence. In her evidence, the complainant had satisfied the necessary elements of the two charges that are leveled against the accused, namely penetration and lack of consent.

[9]	The assessors were direct on the two conflicting versions. They have preferred one version over the other. In my view, the assessor's opinion was not perverse. It was open for them to reach such conclusion on the evidence. I concur with the verdict of the assessors.

[10]	I am satisfied that her evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the two counts he is charged with.

[11]	Considering the nature of the evidence before the Court, I am convinced that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[12]	I find the accused guilty as charged on the two counts of Rape contrary to Sections 207 (1), (2)(a) and (2)(b)of the Crimes Decree No.44 of 2009. I convict the accused Rakesh Chandra on both counts against him. 

[13]	This is the Judgment of the Court.

ACHALA WENGAPPULI
JUDGE

At Suva
13th October 2015

Solicitors for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.
Solicitor for the Accused : Kohli & Singh Lawyers