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

State v Deo [1993] FJHC 96; Hac0026t.1993s (22 October 1993)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Criminal Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26 OF 1993

THE STATE

v.

ROSHNI DEO
d/o Vishnu Deo

MANSLAUGHTER: Contrary to Section 205 of the Penal Code Cap. 17.

Mr. I. Wickramanayake for the State
Mr. M. Raza for the Accused

SENTENCE

The accused was originally charged with the Murder of her 7 month old infant daughter but that has been reduced to the related though less serious offence of Manslaughter. The reason for this reduction is in the words of learned State Counsel:

"... on account of diminished responsibility as a consequence of constant ill-treatment of the accused by her husband."

The facts of the case as outlined by the prosecution and admitted by the accused bears a very small ambit and need not be repeated other than to note that death in this case was caused by the accused throwing her baby daughter into a neighbour's well in which she drowned.

I have had the benefit of perusing a Social Inquiry Report prepared by a Welfare Officer and a Psychiatric Report on the accused's mental status. In brief, the accused was fully conscious of her act and knew exactly what she was doing.

The Social Inquiry Report on the other hand is very comprehensive and I have been greatly assisted by it. The accused it would appear is from a relatively poor family and has had little formal education. Shortly after leaving school she became involved with a young man and bore an illegitimate child which she gave up for adoption when she was rejected by the man and his family.

Since that unfortunate experience, she met and married her present husband 6 years ago and they have had 3 children of which the deceased baby was their youngest.

There is no reason to doubt that the accused's marriage was a less than 'perfect one' and I accept that she has been subjected to some ill-treatment by her husband during the course of their marriage, but I cannot ignore the fact that the accused reacted quite differently to an earlier betrayal by the father of her first illegitimate child. Her 'act of desperation' in that instance was to give up her child for adoption.

In this case however her 'reaction' to her husband's ill-treatment of her was a cruel and callous act wholly misdirected towards their innocent baby daughter. It was at worst an 'act of vengeance'.

It is unfortunate that she had not sought nor been directed to the various agencies that could have assisted her with her marital problems but that cannot and does not excuse the unlawful killing of an innocent baby.

Then counsel submits that the accused has finally found a man who truly loves and cherishes her and that the court should allow her to continue to enjoy this new-found "love", but if it is indeed truly what counsel claims it to be then a temporary separation or absence is unlikely to weaken the existing bond between them.

I have taken into consideration all that has been urged by learned counsel on behalf of the accused; her plea of 'guilty' and the remorse that she has personally expressed. I am also mindful that the memory of her act will haunt her for some time to come and may affect her chances of obtaining custody of her remaining two children.

But I would be failing in my duty to society at large if I did not impose a sentence which not only deters others from committing a similar offence but at the same time reinforces and upholds the 'sanctity of human life' and protects our young and innocent.

Bearing in mind that the accused has already spent 4 months in remand which represents an effective sentence of 6 months imprisonment, the most lenient sentence that this court can impose is one of 9 months imprisonment.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
22nd October, 1993.

HAC0026T.93S