IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 32 of 2015

STATE

V

SIUTA SERU 
             1ST ACCUSED

ASAELI RABOLECA
              2ND ACCUSED

Counsels:	Mr. L. Fotofili for the State
		Mr. A. Paka (L.A.C.) for 1st Accused
		Mr. I. Rakaria (L.A.C.) for 2nd Accused

Dates of Conviction	:   16 September 2016
Date of Judgment	:   16 September 2016

JUDGMENT

[1]	The two accused were tried in this Court on the following 	Information:
   FIRST COUNT
   STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

	MURDER: Contrary to section 237 of the Crimes Decree 2009.

   PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

	SIUTA SERU, on the 19th August 2012 at Bua in the Northern Division murdered Babu Ram.

   SECOND COUNT
   STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

	ATTEMPTED ARSON: Contrary to section 363 (as read with section 362) of the Crimes Decree 2009.

   PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

	SIUTA SERU, on the 19th August 2012 at Bua in the Northern Division, unlawfully attempted to set fire to a building or structure, namely the home of Babu Ram.

   THIRD COUNT
   STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

	AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: Contrary to section 311 of the Crimes Decree 2009.

   PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

	SIUTA SERU and ASAELI RABOLECA, on the 19th August 	2012 at Bua in the Northern Division robbed Babu Ram of 	approximately $350.00 cash.

[2]	The two assessors (another having been discharged because of a 	conflict of interest) returned with opinions of guilty on each 	count against the first accused and guilty on the third count 	against the second accused.

[3]	The court in directing itself on the summing up and in carefully 	reviewing the evidence, concurred with the assessors and 	convicted the first accused on the counts of murder, attempted 	arson and aggravated robbery and convicted the second 	accused on the count of aggravated robbery.

[4]	The reasons for those findings are as follows:

[5]	The main thrust of the prosecution case against the two 	accused were their respective interviews under caution in which 	each confessed to the crimes they were charged with along with 	an inculpatory answer to charge given by the first accused.

[6]	In a pre-trial voir dire the Court had heard evidence relating to 	the generation of those records including evidence from each 	accused and the Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt 	that the records were made voluntarily without unfairness and 	without breach of their Constitutional rights.

[7]	Those issues were then rehearsed in the trial on the general 	issue as is perfectly proper. 

[8]	The State called additional evidence which to a large degree 	corroborated the inculpatory answers given by both of the 	accused in their interviews; not that there is any requirement 	for corroboration. 

[9]	Two separate witnesses gave evidence of the first accused’s 	confession to them of his implication in all three crimes. Neither 	of these witnesses were persons in authority.

[10]	The answers of the second accused in his interview under 	caution clearly implicated him as a joint and willing party in the 	robbery along with the first accused, a robbery conducted with 	force. 

[11]	One difficulty raised in this trial was the pre-trial intervention of 	a third party confessing to the murder and attempted arson. He 	claimed to have had this confession forced out of him by Police 	assaults and claims that his confession is not true. Police 	enquiries subsequently substantiated his claim of abuse and as 	a consequence the D.P.P. withdrew all charges against this third 	party. 

[12]	The Court has no doubt whatsoever that this “confession” was 	false and his subsequent testimony in this trial further 	strengthened the evidence against the two accused. 

[13]	Both accused gave evidence in their defence, both claiming that 	their admissions were fabricated and that they were forced to 	sign the records. Nothing either of the accused said caused me 	to doubt the prosecution evidence.

[14]	Each of the accused called an alibi witness, having complied 	with the alibi procedure as set out in the Criminal Procedure 	Decree. 

[15]	Whilst an accused does not have to prove anything to the Court, 	I could not believe the evidence of either accused and their 	“alibi” witnesses were of no assistance to them whatsoever. The 	wife of the second accused gave evidence which was 	fundamentally different from her earlier Police Statement and 	when this was drawn to her attention she claimed that the 	Police had fabricated her statement to them. The Court could 	not believe this.

[16]	The Court finds that the State has proved the case against each 	accused beyond reasonable doubt. 

[17]	That is the Judgment of the Court. 

					   P. K. Madigan
						Judge

At Labasa
16 September 2016