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

State v Naidu [2013] FJHC 110; HAC01.2013 (14 March 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 01 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

STATE

AND:

SUBARAMANI NAIDU

Counsel : Mr. F. Lacanivalu for the State
Mr. T. Lee for the Accused (As duty solicitor)

Date of Sentence : 14 March 2013

SENTENCE

[1] The Accused above named was charged with one count of murder and one count of attempted murder punishable under Section 237 and Section 44 and 237 of the Crimes Decree respectively.

[2] When the case was mentioned to take plea the Accused pleaded guilty and admitted to the summary of facts.

[3] I reproduce the Summary of Facts as submitted by the State as follows;

"On the 17th of February 2012 at about 1pm at Solovi Heights in Nadi, one Subramani Naidu (the Accused) a 40 year old farmer of Solovi Heights in Nadi, murdered one Vivan Munesh Naidu, (the deceased) aged 2 years and 6 months old and attempted to murder one Rahamma Naidu (the victim) a 74 year old woman also of Solovi Heights in Nadi.

On the above date and time, the victim and the deceased were in the kitchen having lunch while the accused was lying down in the sitting room of the house resting. After a while, the accused got up and picked up a cane knife which was underneath his bed mattress and walked into the kitchen. The accused then ran after the deceased and struck him with the cane knife. The victim grabbed the deceased and ran out of the kitchen. The accused ran after the victim and the deceased and struck them with the cane knife several times on their heads and hands. The victim tried to protect the decease but was unable to do so as the accused had cut off her right hand. The victim then left the deceased on the ground and ran towards the house of Vishal Naidu, the father of the deceased shouting out for help.

One Mun Sami Naidu who was sleeping in the house woke up and ran towards the accused. He held on to the accused and the cane knife and tried to stop him from striking the victim any further. The accused then threw away the cane knife. The victim's right hand was severed and her left hand was partly cut.

The matter was reported at the Namulomulo Police Post and later a team of police officers attended to the crime scene. The accused was taken to the Nadi Hospital and was later transferred to the Lautoka Hospital where he was admitted until the 23/2/12 due to the serious injuries received. The victim and the deceased were also conveyed to the Nadi Hospital.

The accused was interviewed under caution wherein he admitted to striking the victim and the deceased several times with the cane knife on 17 February 2012. During the reconstruction of the scene, the accused also showed the police the exact place where he had struck the victim and deceased with the cane knife. The accused also admitted to committing the offences in his formal charge statement".

[4] The Accused was cautioned by this Court about the mandatory sentence and given time to reconsider his decision. When the case mention after few days the Accused informed court that he knows what he is doing and he knows the consequences also.

[5] Being convinced with the plea to be unequivocal I found the Accused guilty on both counts and convicted the Accused Subramani Naidu for murder and attempted murder as charged.

[6] This case was mentioned for sentencing hearing then the Accused opted to give evidence and got into the witness box and adduced no evidence. Further he did not call any witness on his behalf and did not file written submission.

[7] Since there is no mitigation before the court, I invited the officers from Legal Aid Commission to assist the court. Mr. T. Lee from Legal Aid Commission promptly appeared before the court and assisted the court with comprehensive mitigating submission on behalf of the Accused.

[8] According to the law the only punishment which can be imposed is imprisonment for life. Accordingly, I sentence you for life imprisonment.

[9] Section 18(1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree states as follows:

"(1) Subject to sub-section (2), when a court sentences an offender to be imprisoned for life or for a term of 2 years or more the court must fix a period during which the offender is not eligible to be released on parole."

[10] The Accused was subject to medical evaluation at St Giles Hospital according to report of the Consultant Psychiatrist dated 2nd November 2012, he is of the view:

"Subramani Naidu was charged with murder and attempted murder. He allegedly killed Munesh Naidu, his nephew and attempted to kill his mother, Rajamma Naidu.

He has not expressed remorse for the alleged. He denied he was under the influence of auditory hallucinations or any external force when he allegedly committed the offences. He stated that his intention was to kill the nephew. His reason for his intention was "making trouble" by making too much noise". He knew that use of a knife resulted in death.

In my opinion, Subramani Naidu was aware of his actions and understood the consequences of his actions on the day of the alleged offences. Though mentally unwell, he maintained clarity that it was his nephew and his mother whom he was attacking with a cane knife. Though his actions appear out of proportion of the reason, it was most likely due to poor impulse control and aggressiveness. Aggression, hostility, and poor impulse control has marked his past relapses into states of illness.

In my opinion, he remains a danger to others. His dangerousness towards others increases whenever his mental illness worsens. His mental illness worsens whenever he stops taking his prescribed medications. He needs to attend medical clinics regularly or as when needed to monitor his mental state.

In my opinion, his participation in court is only limited by his lack of expressiveness. He rarely talks and when he does talk, he talks in short sentences or single phrases. He shows good comprehension of verbal commands in Hindi and English. He shows ability to remain cooperative and on one place for duration of interviews.

In my opinion the Defendant needs lifelong treatment with medications. He was not taking medications for years prior to his alleged act. Though he appeared aware of his actions, he was most likely in an ill state due to his not taking prescribed medications. Hostility, aggression and poor impulse control can also occur as part of the mental illness.

I recommend that the Defendant continue to receive medications at the nearest health facility under Community Treatment Order under the Mental Health Decree 2010, if discharged, or in prison, if convicted."

[11] Non parole period in murder cases are decided after considering the facts of relevant cases, it varies from 10 years to 25 years.

[12] State demands a longest period as non parole period in the interest of his family members and the society at large.

[13] Counsel from Legal Aid has taken good effort and filed useful submissions. According to the submissions he pleads for a minimum non parole period.

[14] Defence claims that the Accused needs care from his family members.

[15] Considering the way the murder was committed and the mental health of the Accused, I fix 20 years as non parole period with in the period of incarceration the Prison Authority is advised to subject Subramani Naidu to a proper treatment at the St. Giles Hospital (specialized hospital for mental health treatment).

[16] Regarding the attempted murder I impose 10 years imprisonment and the same to run concurrent to the above sentence.

[17] Subramani Naidu you are sentenced to life imprisonment with 20 years non- parole period. In addition to above you are further imposed of 10 years imprisonment for attempted murder it will be implemented concurrent to the above sentence.

[18] 30 days to appeal to Court of Appeal.

S. Thurairaja
Judge

At Lautoka
14 March 2013

Solicitors: The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
The Legal Aid Commission for Accused.