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

State v Matalava [2015] FJMC 131; Juvenile Case 06.2010 (28 August 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Juvenile Case No. 6 of 2010

STATE

V

ILAI MATALAVA

Prosecution : Inspector Viliame
Accused : Ms Dunn. S

Judgment : 28 August 2015

NO CASE TO ANSWER

1. The Accused, Ilai Matalava is charge with an offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to section 275 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
   
2. The particulars of the offence is that, the Accused on the 7th day of October 2010, at Labasa assaulted Anita Devi thereby causing her actual bodily harm.
   
3. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge on 6 June 2012, and the case proceeded for hearing on 27 February 2015.
   

4. On the hearing date, the Prosecution called four witnesses which includes two Police Officers and two civilian witness. One of the civilian witness is the complainant in this case. The Police Officers are the interviewing officer and the officer who requested for the medical examination of the Victim.

5. At the end of the prosecution case, once the Prosecution closed his case, the Defence Counsel make an oral application to file a No Case to Answer Submission. The Defence Counsel filed a No Case to Answer submission on 11 March 2015. The application was made pursuant to section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009.

6. The Defence submit that there is not enough evidence led by Prosecution to show that it was the Accused who threw the stone at the Victim. There is not enough evidence upon which the court could convict the Accused on. The Defence further submit that the evidence led by Prosecution is unreliable and the court should not convict on it.

7. With the submission from the Defence, I refer to the case of R v Jai Chand (1972) 18 FLR 101, cited by the Defence in their submission where it was held

"...that the decision as to whether or not there is a case to answer should depend not so much on whether the adjudicating tribunal would at that stage convict or acquit but on whether the evidence is such that a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could or might convict on the evidence so far laid before it...However, the question does depend solely on whether there is some evidence irrespective of its credibility or weight sufficient to put the accused on his defence. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough not can any amount of worthless discredited evidence''.

8. The Defence also refer to the case of Moidean v R, Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1976 and Rohit Ram Latchan v State, Criminal Action No. HAA32 of 1996, where the Court of Appeal state that a no case to answer may be properly made and upheld if there is no evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged offence. The Victim in her evidence in chief state that the Accused was on that tree, she looked up at the mango tree and the stone fell from above and touched her forehead. It was the Accused standing with the stone and jumped from the tree. When cross examined she said she saw the Accused when she was under the tree. She told the Police that it was the Accused and she recognised the Accused when she was under the mango tree. The Victim confirmed that she was hurt and taken to hospital where she was scan and get injection.

9. In this ruling, I find that there is sufficient evidence adduced by the Prosecution in this case that requires the Accused to put up his defence against the charge and evidence already tendered before this court.

10. Accordingly, I dismiss the Defence application of No Case to Answer and the trial will proceed further on the defence case.

Cama M. Tuberi
Resident Magistrate