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

State v Lal [2015] FJMC 71; Criminal Case 69.2014 (30 June 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 69 of 2014

STATE

V

JAYANTI LAL

Prosecution: PC Monish

Accused: In Person

Judgment: 30 June 2015

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused, Jayanti Lal is charged with one count of Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm, contrary to section 275 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009. The particulars of offence is that, on 12th day of December 2013, at Labasa, in the Northern Division, assaulted Uma Deo, thereby causing him actual bodily harm.

2. Section 275 of the Crimes Decree provides – A person commits a summary offence if he or she commits an assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

3. The charge was put to the Accused on 1 July 2014, where the Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded for hearing on 28 April 2015.

4. The Prosecution called Uma Deo the victim (PW1) and another civilian Amrit Prasad (PW2) as his witnesses, whereas the Accused is the only witness for the Defence.

5. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and the onus is on the Prosecution.

6. The allegation is that the Accused punched PW1's face causing swollen on PW1's left face.

7. PW1 in his evidence confirms that he was punched by the Accused on the left side of his face and his face was swollen. According to PW1 it was a moon light night and he clearly see the Accused on that night and it was the Accused who punched him on that night resulted in the swollen on the left side of his face. In his evidence, he was carrying a stick on his way back home to protect him from the Accused dogs. It was almost midnight at the driveway of the Accused where the Accused was in a van and the Accused told PW1 to drink beer. PW1 refused to drink beer and the Accused snatched the stick away from PW1 and when PW1 asked for the stick the Accused punched him. The Prosecution tender the Medical Report (Prosecution Exhibit 1) which confirms mild swelling below the left eye and the medical report further state that the mild swelling is secondary to the blow to the face by the Accused fist.

8. The Accused deny punching PW1. The Accused evidence is that he was not in good terms with PW1 and it is PW1 who wanted to hit him with the stick. The Accused state that this is a false complaint.

9. The Accused denied drinking beer in the van. This evidence was confirmed by PW2. PW2 in his evidence further state that he did not see the Accused punch the victim, he only saw the Accused snatched the stick away from PW1. Further he stated that he heard both PW1 and the Accused talking very loud.

10. At the beginning of the trial the Prosecution raised the issue that the Accused had interfered with the Prosecution witnesses and that is PW2. Before the trial the Accused was talking to PW2 outside the court and when the Prosecution want to talk to PW2 the Accused told the Prosecution that PW2 is his main witness and he pays for his fare.

11. In observing the demeanour of the witnesses and their evidence, I find PW1 as a credible witness. I find that the Accused has interfered with the Prosecution witness and that is why the evidence of PW2 support the Accused evidence on not drinking beer and he did not see the Accused punched PW1. This affects the credibility of PW2 and the Accused.

12. In assessing the evidence, I find that PW1's evidence that he was punched by the Accused is supported and consistent with the medical report finding. I am satisfied that the Prosecution has proved the elements of this offence and has satisfied the burden of proof by proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

13. In my judgment, I find the Accused guilty as charged and accordingly, I convict the Accused as charged.

28 day to appeals

Cama M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE