IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(SUVA)
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.HAA0010 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

JITENDRA PRASAD
s/o Lal Bhadur
APPELLANT

AND:

STATE
RESPONDENT

Appellant in Person
Miss S. Kaimacuata for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant appeals against a sentence of 6 months imprisonment imposed on him by Suva Magistrate's Court (S.M.Shah Esq.) after conviction on his own plea of one offence of Robbery contrary to Section 293 (2) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17. The brief facts are that on the 5th day of January, 1994 at about 9p.m. the complainant was returning to his home at 115 Princess Road. As he got off his car the Appellant appeared from the side and pulled the complainant's bag. Both fell to the ground and struggled. Appellant then hit the complainant and snatched $F300.00, $A5.00 and demanded that complainant signed a cheque for $F1000.00. Out of fear complainant complied with Appellant's demand as he had a kitchen knife in his hand.

Complainant told Appellant to cash the cheque at a friend's place at Roberston Road. As they reached Roberston Road the Appellant ran away, and on the following day at 12 noon Appellant tried to cash the cheque at ANZ Bank where he was arrested. $155.00 was recovered from the appellant.

On appeal Appellant expressed remorse at what he had done and promised me that he would reform and not return to Court again. He said he would return to FIT to complete a course in Automotive Engineering there given the chance so to do. He told me that he came from a very poor family. He said that in prison there are so many hardened criminals who are trying to influence him. The complainant according to appellant is willing to help him with his education. He asked that his sentence be suspended.

On perusing the record I find that there was no reference by the Magistrate to any mitigation having put forward by the Accused at all. Whether the record is deficient or whether it was a failure to extract mitigating circumstances from the Accused I do not know.

Robbery is a traumatic event for its victims, it is a nasty and humiliating crime which carries a maximum term of 14 years imprisonment.

Appellant committed this offence under the cover of darkness and he used violence coupled with the threat of using a kitchen knife on the complainant. It would have had serious consequence.

The Appellant is an intelligent young man and could have sought other lawful means to obtain financial assistance to enable him to complete his studies rather than resorting to criminal activities to fulfil his intentions.

I may say that the Appellant is nonetheless fortunate to have been charged with Robbery, and not Robbery With Violence contrary to Section 293 (1) of the Penal Code which carries a maximum sentence of Life Imprisonment.

Although I have taken into account everything that Appellant has said I am satisfied that he has not placed any material before me to show me that the Sentence of 6 months imposed by the Trial Magistrate was excessive in any way.

The offence of Robbery is too prevalent, and I agree with the Magistrate that a deterrent sentence is appropriate in this case.

I can only hope that Appellant has learnt, that crime does not pay, during his short period of incarceration.

The Appeal will therefore be dismissed.

S W Kepa
JUDGE
11th February, 1994.
HAA0010J.94S