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

Prasad v State [2009] FJHC 10; HAA105.2008 (23 January 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO: HAA 105 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

EDWIN SHANEEL PRASAD

AND:

THE STATE

Apellant in Person
Ms L. Lagilevu for the State/Respondent

Date of Ruling: 23 January 2009.

RULING

1. Edwin Shaneel Prasad you were charged as follows:
   

Statement of Offence

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm: contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code Cap 17

Particulars of Offence

Edwin Shaneel Prasad f/n Bijay Prasad on the 29th day of July 2007 At Naduru Road, Nausori in the Central Division assaulted Usha Kiran Lata f/n Hari Prasad thereby occasioning her bodily harm.

2 Following a trial in the Magistrate Court at Nausori you were found guilty as charged. You were then sentence to pay a fine of $200 to be paid to the victim as compensation, in default 3 months imprisonment. The court also bound you for good behavior for 2 years on a bond of $200.00.

3 This is your appeal against conviction and sentence.

Grounds of Appeal

4 Your are grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. In your petition of appeal filed on 14 August 2008, you had submitted the following:
   
   1. the learned magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence at all;
      
   2. the learned Magistrate did not give the appellant time to find a lawyer or to prepare well for himself;
      
   3. the learned magistrate erred in not believing the defence three defence witnesses;
      
   4. the learned magistrate erred in law in transferring the burden of proof to the defence;
      

[There were a total of 10 so called grounds submitted but the above 4 captures the 10. Several grounds were just rephrasing of one of the 4 above.]

2. In your further submission dated 13 January 2008, you have submitted your analysis of some of the so called inadequacies of the trial magistrate in evaluating the evidence in your trial. You submit the following as examples:
   
   1. That no medical report was tabled in evidence during to prove the claim by the victim that she was pregnant at the time of the assault on her by the appellant;
      
   2. The complainant’s evidence was that she was assaulted with a piece of timber which landed on her back and arm. However here was nothing stated in the medical report about the assault on the arm;
      
   3. The prosecution failed to observe with preliminaries and forced accused into pleading guilty;
      
   4. The Investigation Officer did not visit the crime of the assault until after a few day
      

5 The State had not filed any response to your submissions despite being given time to do so. This is most unhelpful to the court.

Appeal Determination

6 I have reviewed the court record in your trial and I have considered carefully the various grounds you have submitted. Many of the so called grounds are simply incorrect understanding of the trial processes and how a charge may be proven in a trial. However, the approach of the court in determining this appeal is to review the procedure and the evidence which the court considered, with the various issues raised by the appellant in his appeal grounds.

7 I am satisfied that the appellant was given time to find legal counsel and in fact found legal counsel in Mr. Marawai. The complaint of the appellant tat he was not given time to look for a lawyer is incorrect. There is also no basis from the record of the trial that there was any pressure put on the appellant to plead guilty; the contrary appears to be the case in the court being very accommodating towards him in getting legal representation.

8 As regards the claim for shifting the burden of proof, again there is no basis for this claim from the court record. Mr Marawai for the appellant submitted to the court that the case should be dismissed because ‘there are doubts in the case as to the truth....Doubts have been created.’ He did not refer to any evidential basis for his claim. The court on the other hand concluded that it ‘..accept the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 as truthful and reliable that the complainant was assaulted by the accused. The medical certificate confirms the assault. Injuries were detected on the complainant’s back....’

9 This finding of the learned Magistrate will not be interfered with lightly on appeal, by this court because of the important point of practice raised by the Court of Appeal in Shindora f/n Enkama v State [1988] 34 FLR 135 at page 140, wherein the court stated thus:

‘..we feel we ought to draw attention to an important point of practice concerning the exercise by the High Court of its appellate jurisdiction. An appellate Court is primarily concerned to satisfy itself that the conclusion reached by the trial court can be reasonably be supported on the evidence adduced and upon applicable law.

Where a case depends essentially, as the present case does, on the credibility of witnesses and findings of fact connected therewith, an appellate court ought to be guided by the impression made on the magistrate who saw and heard witnesses and not by its own evaluation of the printed evidence which can be misleading.’

10 The learned magistrate saw the witnesses for the state and for the appellant gave their evidence in court. She observed their demeanor and she is the one best able to determine which were credible and to be believed. In order for the appellant to succeed in his claim he has to convince this court that there was no admissible evidence before the trial magistrate on which the appellant could have been found guilty. His submission does not raise any of the basis that would allow such an interference.

11 This will not interfere with this finding I am satisfied that on the evidence that were sworn testimony before the court, the learned magistrate was correct in reaching the conclusion that she did.

12 The result is that the appeal against conviction is dismissed as having no merit.

13 The appellant did not appeal against sentence. I would observe that it would have been difficult to convince this court that the sentence was contrary to law, improper or unprincipled.

14 The court orders that the appeal be dismissed.

Isikeli Mataitoga
JUDGE