IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
SITTING AT NAUSORI 
							           Criminal Case No. 192 of 2015

State

v

Abaramo Yamoyamo 	

Prosecution		:    Ms Serukai
Accused 	:   Present – In Person  

Judgment
Introduction
The accused person is charged with Aggravated Robbery, contrary to Section 311 (1)(b) of Crimes Decree Number 44 of 2009. The Particulars of Offence is that:
"Abaramo Yamoyamo on the 25th day of February, 2015, Nausori in the Central Division been armed with an offensive weapon stole cash $150.00, 1 x Compac Laptop valued at $1200.00 and G Next Mobile Phone  valued at $399.00 all to the total value of $1749.00, from Arvin Singh." 
The High Court pursuant to Section 4 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009 extended the jurisdiction of this Court to try this case.
The Law 
Section 311 of the Crimes Decree 2009 provides that" (1) A person commits an indictable offence if he or she — 
(a) commits a robbery in company with one or more other persons; or 
(b) commits a robbery and, at the time of the robbery, has an offensive weapon with him or her. 
Penalty — Imprisonment for 20 years. 

(2) for the purposes of this Decree, an offence against sub-section (1) is to be known as the offence of aggravated robbery . 

(3) In this section —
"offensive weapon" includes —
(a) an article made or adapted for use for causing injury to, or incapacitating, a person; or 
(b) an article where the person who has the article intends, or threatens to use, the article to cause injury to, or to incapacitate, another person. "
The main elements of the offence of Aggravated Robbery in this case are: 
i. The accused person, 
ii. Robbed the complainant, 
iii. and at the time of the robbery he had an offensive weapon. 
The onus of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons is borne by the prosecution. There is no onus on the accused persons at any stage to prove their innocence or to prove anything else.
The Evidence
The prosecution called 5 witnesses. The accused person gave sworn evidence.
Analysis of Evidence in Relation to the Laws
The Court following a voir dire ruled that the Caution Interview of the accused person can be tendered and admitted as evidence. The Court had found the statement to have been obtained fairly and without any threat, duress or inducement.
The Court has noted all the evidence given in Court, together with the exhibits and documents that were tendered. This Court notes that the onus on proving that the accused person committed the offence that he is charged with rests with the prosecution. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has further noted the main elements of the offence of aggravated robbery which need to be proven by the state.
The evidence of the accused in cross-examination was that “when I went inside that house – my mind was blank. I wanted to go and relax and come back. When I was at that house. I realised the complainant was there. It was then I decided to go and steal. I did not bother to knock the door. House was locked properly…”
The evidence of the accused in Court was that he entered the house of the complainant and took certain items from his house. While the accused denied taking all the items as per the charge and being armed. The caution interview of the accused which was admitted by this Court and in it he admitted that he entered the house of the complainant. All this evidence by the accused was on his own free will. While the complainant did not identify the accused. The accused told the Court and the police that he was in the house of the complainant. The accused denied that he was armed. The complainant told the Court that the accused used a knife to threaten him. The knife belonged to the complainant. The complainant also told the Court of the items the accused stole from him. The Court believes the complainants version of events. He was coherent. The accused admitted partially in court and in the caution interview. The accused has altered the story to suit him. The Court finds that the prosecution has proven in Court the identification, date, time and place of the offence. They also proved with the evidence of the complainant that the accused was armed.
For the foregoing reasons this Court finds the accused guilty of the charge of aggravated robbery and convicts him accordingly. 

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
4/01/2016