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

State v Mani [2012] FJHC 1059; HAC098.2010 (3 May 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 098/2010

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

EPARAMA MANI

COUNSEL: Messrs. L. Fotofili and M. Vosawale for the State
Accused in Person

Date of Hearing: 18-26/04/2012
Date of Summing Up: 30/04/2012
Date of Judgment: 03/05/2012

JUDGMENT

01. EPARAMA MANI, you have been charged with the following charge on amended information dated 18th day of April, 2012.

Statement of Offence

AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: Contrary to section 311(1) (b) of the Crimes Decree No: 44/2009.

Particulars of Offence

EPARAMA MANI with others on the 27th day of April, 2010 at Samabula in the Central Division, when armed with offensive weapon, namely an axe, stole a Sekonda wrist watch valued at $300.00,one Pentex camera valued at $299.00,one orange Bill Bong bag valued at $440.00,a Puma sports bag valued at $25.00,one Speedo Swimwear valued at $22.00,one Nokia Mobile phone valued at $159.00,a ladies hand bag valued at $35.00, a men's wallet valued at $15.00 all to the estimated value of $1,295.00 from Raymond John Nicolls.

02. After trial on the charge, the assessors returned unanimous opinion of guilty against the accused. Their findings are merely their opinions based on their views of the facts of the case. They have no power to try and convict the accused. Their duty is to offer their opinions which might assist the trial judge. The trial judge has the power to accept or reject their opinions.

03. I direct myself on my own summing up and on looking at the evidence in its entirety I find that I cannot agree with the assessors. I find the opinion of the assessors appears to be perverse.

04. In this case prosecution charged the accused jointly with some others unknown to the prosecution.

05. In this case, prosecution had filed their first statement of information on 11/06/2010 and the amended statement of information on 08/04/2012. Both statements of information were read out in this court before commencement of the trial. In the amended information prosecution had omitted certain items.

06. The police officer who arrested the accused gave evidence. He had arrested the accused on information. At the time of arrest nothing recovered from him.

07. In this case, according to police, recovery had been done in two places. One in Ms. Mere's house and the other in accused's house. The list of item recovered from Ms. Mere's house is marked as exhibit -01. Nineteen items mentioned in the list. Among that items the marked wrist watch, man's wallet and Speedo swimwear were not included. No evidence led to confirm from where those items came. The prosecution not took any endeavour to show those items marked to Sgt/Samuela who went for the recovery. According to the amended particulars of offence one Pentex camera had been stolen during the robbery. In the recovery list a Cannon Digital camera had been mentioned. Further prosecution had not called Ms. Mere to give evidence in this court.

08. Complainant Raymond John Nicolls had not identified anybody at the time of the robbery. But he identified the wrist watch, man's wallet and Speedo swimwear in this court. The wrist watch and the wallet were in his possession at the time of giving evidence. No evidence placed by the prosecution through police as to when they handed over those items to the witness. In his statement he has not mentioned about an axe. Instead of an axe he had said a "chopper" was in one of the accused's possession. A chopper has wider meaning. Anything used for cutting could be called as chopper.

09. Seizing officer (axe) DC/Jone and seizing officer (search list) DC/Samuela both had not given statement after the recovery. They had given their statements in April 2012 as per the instruction of Director of Public Prosecution. The delay was not explained in their evidence. Even they had not entered notes in their note books.

10. As per the search list 19 items had been recovered from one Ms. Mere's house. As per the amended information not a single item included from the list. It is merely recovery of items but not connected to this case. The items included in the amended information are not included in the search list.
    
11. The police witnesses called by prosecution stated that accused was not assaulted while he was in their custody. He had not made any complaint regarding police assault while he was in police custody. But accused said that he admitted his caution interview due to fear. The items shown to accused at the time of recording his interview were not in the list. Further the axe was not shown to accused while recording his interview. No explanation given as to how the police recovered the items mentioned in the information. No evidence led as to when the police handed over the wrist watch and wallet to the complainant. As per the medical report a blunt injury (old) seen below left eye of the accused. Accused was arrested on 03/05/2010 and was produced before a doctor on 06/05/2010 after recording his interview.
    
12. The accused admitted he stole a Sekonda brand wrist watch, man's wallet, a black computer bag and a leveller in his caution interview statement. But prosecution not adduced any evidence as to the recovery of the watch and the man's wallet. The computer bag and the leveller were not included in the statement of information filed against him. The complainant nothing mentioned about the black computer bag and the leveller. This creates a serious doubt as to the voluntariness of his caution interview statement.
    
13. Accused takes up the position that he bought a bag containing some items from a known person. To support his position he called witnesses. All of his witnesses had witnessed the transaction. But not a single item recovered from the bag had been included in the amended information. Accused admits that an axe was in the bag and he gave it to his brother in law to chop firewood. The complainant in his statement to police mentioned a chopper was in the possession of one of the accused at the time of robbery. The description of the chopper was not given when he lodged his complain immediately after the incident.
    
14. As per the information filed by the prosecution the accused is only charged for committing Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311(1) (b) of the Crimes Decree No: 44 of 2009.
    

15. The evidence presented by prosecution is not consistence and not corroborative of each other and they fall apart in material parts. Further the evidence presented by prosecution contains lots of ambiguity. Hence it creates a genuine doubt in my mind and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

16. In the premises, I find the accused not guilty of the charge and he is acquitted from this case.

P.Kumararatnam
JUDGE

At Suva
03/05/2012