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

State v Druguta [2016] FJMC 61; Criminal Case 25.2015 (23 May 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT SAVUSAVU

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 25 of 2015

STATE

v

JOSEVA DRUGUTA

For Prosecution : Sgt Rinesh

For Accused : In Person

Judgment : 23 May 2016

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused Joseva Druguta was charged with the offence of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree, 2009.
   
2. The particulars of the offence was that;-

“Josefa Druguta between the 1^st day of December 2014 to the 18^th day of January 2015, at Savusavu in the Northern Division, dishonestly appropriated (stole) 1 gallon valued $5.00, 1 garland valued $20.00, and container of sugar valued $4.00, all to the total value of $29.00 the property of Ilisoni Tiko.”

3. The Accused waived his rights to counsel on 2 February 2015, and pleaded not guilty to the charge on 21 September 2015. The case proceeded for hearing on 12 February 2016.
4. At the hearing, the Victim is the only witness for the Prosecution. The Accused exercise his rights to remain silent after his rights were explained to him and did not call any witness.
   
5. Section 291 (1) of the Crimes Decree, 2009, state;-

“A person commits a summary offence if he or she dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.”

6. The elements of the offence that the Prosecution must proved beyond reasonable doubts are;-
   1. the accused;
   2. dishonestly appropriates property;
   100. with intention to permanently deprive;
   4. the owner.
      
7. The Victim (PW1) Ilisoni Tiko in his evidence state that on his return from Suva, he knew that someone had break into his house as it was locked from inside. He make his enquiry and was informed that the Accused had broke into his house through the windows. He identified the Accused in court as the person standing in the accused dock. The items stolen are 1 garland, I yellow container, some fish in the freezer put in by the Accused. The total value of the items stolen is $27.00.
   
8. There was no cross examination and the evidence of the PW1 was not challenge. There was no admission and the caution interview and the charge statement were tendered by consent and marked Prosecution Exhibit 1 and 2 respectively.
   
9. There will be no adverse inference drawn against the Accused in exercising his rights to remain silent.
   
10. The onus to prove the elements of the offence is the responsibility of the Prosecution. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
11. In regards to the first element of the offence which is the accused. PW1 stated in his evidence that he was informed that the Accused broke into his house. That is a hearsay evidence and will not be considered or given any weight. The name of the person who provided the information to PW1 was not led in evidence and the person was not call by the Prosecution. There are doubts on whether Joseva Druguta is the correct and rightful Accused.
    
12. The Accused was charged with theft. There was no evidence led by the Prosecution to show, establish, and prove that the Accused takes the alleged stolen items from PW1’s house between 1 December 2014 to 18 January 2015. With no evidence on the taking of the items, there is no need to consider and discuss elements (b), (c), and (d) of the offence. Again there are doubts on the elements of the offence (b), (c), and (d) as no evidence led by the Prosecution to prove these elements.
    
13. There is a full denial by the Accused when caution interviewed by the police.
    
14. There is no evidence from PW1 that a container of sugar valued at $4.00 was stolen from his house between 1 December 2014 to 18 January 2015. In PW1’s evidence he stated that the total value of the items stolen is $27.00. There is contradiction on the items stated in the charge and the evidence led by Prosecution. Contradiction was also on the total amount stated in the charge and on the evidence led.
    
15. There are doubts on evidence adduced and led by the Prosecution that the Accused takes the alleged stolen items from PW1’s house. There are doubts on the identification of the Accused as the only evidence linking the Accused to the offence are hearsay evidence.
    
16. In assessing the evidence, I find that the Prosecution has failed to discharge his responsibility to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts. There are doubts exist in the identification of the Accused and other elements of the offence.
    
17. In my judgment, I find the Accused not guilty as charged and I acquit the Accused accordingly.
    

28 days to appeal.

..................................... C. M. Tuberi RESIDENT MAGISTRATE