VINOD PRASAD s/o RAM PRASAD, STEVEN RAJENDRA KUMAR s/o GOVIith another between 7th January 2001 and 10th January 2001 at Suva in the
Central Division sion with intent to defraud obtained $7,500.00 in cash from ASHRIKA DEVI BHAGAT d/o DHARMENDRA KUMAR by falsely
pretending that one STEVEN RAJENDRA KUMAR s/o GOVIND would marry the said ASHRIKA DEVI BHAGAT d/o DHARMENDRA KUMAR and take her away
to Australia.
He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. He now appeals against sentence on the ground that it is manifestly exce.
The State opposed the appeal, saying that the facts showed that the Appelwas part and parcel of a premeditated crime against an inno
innocent woman who believed she was getting married. The State submitted that there were many aggravating circumstances of the case,
and no mitigating circumstances.
In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant’s son, Alex Rajeev Narayan, who is 16 years old, gavdence that because his
fath father was in prison, he and his siblings had been separated and were being looked after by the church.
The facts of the case, as outlined by the prosecution in the Magistrates Coure that Ashrika Devi Bhagat advertised in the newspapers,
irs, in the year 2000, for a suitable marriage partner. The Appellant under the name of Daniel Pillay wrote to her expressing interest.
He and one Vinod Prasad then contacted Ashrika Bhagat and told her that they would be visiting her family with a marriage proposal.
On 8th January 2000, they met with her and her parents at a restaurant. They agreed that a marriage would take place. The Appellant
and his accomplice, with one Mark Edwards, visited the family in Veisaru, Ba.
The next day, the Appellant, Vinod Prasad and Mark Edwarcompanied Ashrika and her family to Suva ostensibly for the legal marriage.
On the way the the Appellant and Mark Edwards asked Ashrika for $3,500 to pay, they said, for their visa applications to Australia.
She withdrew the money from her bank account and gave it to her mother. In Suva, Vinod Prasad took everyone to the Outrigger Hotel
and took the $3,500 from Ashrika’s mother.
The next day the Appellant and his friends had photographs taken (for the visa aptions). They then brought a Fijian man to the hotel,
tellinelling Ashrika and her family that he was a marriage officer. The man then conducted a false marriage ceremony. Mark Edwards
then asked for a further payment of $4000, which Ashrika’s father sent to him. The money was given for immigration purposes. The
Appellant then told Ashrika and her mother to return to Ba. They did so, and did not see the three men again. They reported the matter
to police. The Appellant was interviewed under caution, and confessed his part in the plan to defraud Ashrika.
In mitigation the Appellant said he had only received $700.00 as a result of the crime. He is 31 years old, and divorced with five
children aged between 16 years and 8 years. He is a taxi driver and said he participated in the offence because he was influenced
by his friend. In sentencing him, the learned Chief Magistrate said that the Appellant had not learnt from his previous jail experience
and that he would start at 5 years imprisonment. He gave him a 1½ year reduction for the guilty plea, and a further 6 months for
other mitigating circumstances. The Appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
At this appeal, the Appellant asked for a reduction or suspension of his sentence on the ground that he wished to take care of his
children. He said that his mother had died in June and his wife was not interested in looking after the children.
His son confirmed this on oath. His account of a family torn apart by the activities of the Appellant, is a sad one. It is also a
common one. The future welfare of their families appear not to deter offenders from offending, and it is often their families who
suffer far more than the offenders themselves.
However, it is apparent that since 1985, whe Appellant was first given a sentence of a fine for Drunk and Disorderly behaviour, he
hase has continued to offend undeterred by the prospect of imprisonment. His eldest son was one year old, when he was convicted of
Shop Breaking Entering and Larceny in 1986, and three years old when he was first convicted of five counts of Obtaining by False
Pretences in 1988. Thoughts for the welfare of his children did not prevent him from committing Robbery with Violence and Housebreaking
offences subsequently.
With his previous record, the Appellant could not expect to be treated with the leniehich is usually shown to a first offender. The
plight of hiof his children is unfortunate, but cannot override the duty of the court to sentence in a way that reflects the gravity
of the offending.
The offending was grave. The facts disclose a plot to trick an innocent 22 year old woman into a bogus marriage in order to obtain
money from her and her parents. The false pretence took advantage of her trust, and was an insult to the institution of marriage.
It took advantage of the Indian custom of the arranged marriage, and of a young woman’s desire to migrate to Australia.
This was a most despicable offence and it deserved the three year term imposed. The term is w the tariff for fraud offences.
The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE
At Suva
Haa0039J.01S
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2001/54.html
