IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 121 OF 2025

STATE

V

MANOA SEUTINAVITI

Date of Hearing: 14 August 2025
Date of Judgment: 20 August 2025

Counsel:  Ms U Ratukalou and Mr J Singh for the State
Mr A Prasad and Ms S Mocenavaga for the Accused

JUDGMENT

[1]	The Accused pleaded not guilty to a charge of Rape of a 14-year-old male, contrary to sections 207(1) and (2)(c) of the Crimes Act.

Relevant Law
[2]	Section 207(2)(c) of the Crimes Act provides:

A person rapes another person if— (c) the person penetrates the mouth of the other person to any extent with the person’s penis without the other person’s consent.

[3]	Section 206 of the Crimes Act defines consent as:

Consent freely and voluntarily given by a person with the necessary mental capacity to give that consent. Submission without physical resistance shall not alone constitute consent.

[4]	To establish guilt, the prosecution must prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This burden remains constant and does not shift to the Accused.

[5]	The prosecution must prove:

1.	That the Accused penetrated the complainant’s mouth with his penis. The phrase “to any extent” includes even slight penetration.
2.	That the complainant did not freely and voluntarily consent to the act.
3.	That the Accused knew the complainant did not consent.

Prosecution Evidence
[6]	The prosecution called the complainant and his aunt as witnesses.

[7]	The complainant resides with his mother and siblings in Raiwaqa. On 8 April 2025, he accompanied his aunt to collect breadfruit from her residence. The aunt, a woman in her early twenties, and the complainant walked to Samabula. Upon reaching the Accused’s compound, they called out for permission to pass through. The Accused emerged and, upon learning their purpose, offered them cassava from his plantation.

[8]	The aunt, familiar with the Accused from prior encounters, reluctantly accepted the offer. The Accused went inside, changed clothes, and returned with a cane knife and a sack. The complainant accompanied him to the plantation, while the aunt returned home to charge her phone.

[9]	While the complainant was packing cassava, the Accused placed the cane knife on his neck and ordered him to enter the house. Out of fear, the complainant complied. Inside, the Accused made the complainant kneel, pulled down his pants, and penetrated the complainant’s mouth with his penis. He sat on the bed with the cane knife beside him, holding and pushing the complainant’s head toward his penis.

[10]	The assault was interrupted when the aunt shouted. The Accused moved further up the bed, allowing the complainant to escape through a window. The complainant ran to his aunt for protection. The Accused then emerged and said, “Tell that boy to come and finish what he was doing.” The aunt threatened to report him to police, at which point the Accused offered them money. They fled and reported the incident.

[11]	The aunt testified that upon returning to the Accused’s house, she found the front door open. Peering inside, she saw her nephew kneeling before the Accused, who had his pants down and a knife beside him. When the Accused saw her, he stepped back. Her nephew jumped out the window and stood behind her. The Accused, naked and exposing his genitals, invited them inside for a conversation. Shocked and frightened, they ran to the police station.

Defence Evidence
[12]	The Accused testified that after harvesting cassava, he entered his house to find a bag. He claimed the complainant followed him inside and attempted to pull his trousers, which he interpreted as a sexual advance. He stated that he chased the complainant out and denied any further interaction.

Analysis
[13]	The identity of the Accused is not in dispute. He is 66 years old and resides in the same settlement as the complainant’s aunt.

[14]	It is agreed that the complainant was alone with the Accused at the plantation. The Accused’s account that a 14-year-old boy attempted to seduce him is implausible and lacks credibility.

[15]	The complainant and his aunt’s accounts are substantially consistent. While she did not witness the act of penetration, she observed the complainant kneeling before the Accused, who was naked with a cane knife beside him. There are no material inconsistencies in their testimonies.

[16]	If the complainant was threatened with a weapon to submit to sexual penetration, this clearly negates free and voluntary consent. It also establishes that the Accused knew the complainant did not consent.

[17]	Both the complainant and his aunt gave honest and reliable accounts of the events of 8 April 2025. I accept the complainant’s evidence that the Accused forced him to perform oral sex under threat of violence.

Verdict
[18]	I find the Accused guilty of rape as charged. He is convicted accordingly.

[19]	An order is made permanently suppressing the name of the complainant, who is a child, from any media publication.

………………………………………..
Hon Mr Justice Daniel Goundar

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Legal Aid Commission for the Accused