IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT IN FIJI AT SIGATOKA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Criminal Case No. 393/22

THE STATE –v- MOREN SARITA PARSAD

For the Prosecution:		PC Kamea
For the Accused:		Mr. Waqavakatoga
JUDGMENT

1.	The Accused is charged with the following: -
Statement of offence
ASSAULT CAUSING ACTUAL BODILY HARM: Contrary to section 275 of the Crimes Act No.44 of 2009
Particulars of offence
MOREN SARITA PARSAD on the 19th of November 2022 at Sigatoka, in the Western Division assaulted RIYA RUPALI, thereby occasioning her actual bodily harm. 
2.	The Accused pleaded not guilty to the above charge and so the matter proceeded to Trial on 15th July, 2025.
The Prosecution Case
3.	Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1) is Riya Rupali, Cashier of Kulukulu. She recalls being asked by her step mother, the Accused, on the morning of the day in question at home to cook the food but she replied that could not cook. The Accused then slapped and pushed her where she sustained injuries to her right foot. 

In cross-examination, she identifies the medical report to be hers although she was 16 years at the time, did not sign her medical report nor did her guardian during the time who is her brother did not sign the medical report.
4.	Prosecution Witness 2 (PW2) is Sahil Prasad, Mechanic of Kulukulu. He saw the Accused who is also his step mother slap his sister PW1 twice and pushed her. 
5.	Prosecution tendered in the medical report of PW1 as PE1. 
6.	Prosecution then closed its case. The Court found that there was a Case to Answer and as such the Accused elected to give sworn evidence. 
The Defense Case
7.	Defense Witness 1 (DW1), the Accused, Domestic Duties of Kulukulu stated that she did not assault PW1 at any point in time. 
8.	Defense Witness 2 (DW2) is Salen Prasad, Mechanic of Kulukulu. He saw his wife, the Accused and his daughter PW1 arguing that morning but he did not see the Accused slap PW1. 
9.	Defense closed its case.
Analysis
10.	The State bears the burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The respective elements of the offence of Assault are as follows:
1.	The Accused 
2.	Assaulted PW1
3.	thereby occasioning her actual bodily harm 
11.	I have considered all the evidence and exhibit before the Court. In the course of the Trial, it became apparent that element 1 was not in dispute. What is in issue is whether there was an actual assault that resulted in PW1’s injuries. This is case of one’s word against the other. PW1 and PW2 both say that the Accused slapped and pushed PW1 whereas DW1 and DW2 both deny that that ever happened. There is no reasons before the Court to doubt the evidence of the witnesses. His Lordship Mr. Justice Goundar in Vatiliai v State HAC 130 of 2021 Suva provided guidance in matters such as this when he stated:
“This is classic case of his word against her word. The complainant may be telling the truth but the accused may also be telling the truth….evidence is equally plausible….evidence not been discredited in any material regard. I am not sure of the Accused’s guilt because his account may b true. That means I have a reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. When the Court feels unsure of guilt, the prosecution has not discharged the burden to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”   
12.	The evidence in this matter has not been discredited in any material regard. I am, therefore, not sure of the Accused guilt. Further, to this, the Court places minimal weight on an unsigned medical report of PW1. This ought to have been rectified by the investigators. In absence of an unsigned medical report, I cannot prejudice the Accused by placing significant weight on such a documents. Reports such as a medical report needs to be properly processed and recorded. 

Findings
13.	Moren Sarita Prasad, I find the charge against you has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I hereby find you not guilty and I acquit you accordingly of the charge of Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm.
14.	28 days to appeal.

----------------------
J. Daurewa
Resident Magistrate
21st July 2025