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

State v Singh - Judgment [2015] FJHC 732; HAC134.2014 (6 October 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 134 OF 2014

STATE

V

MAAN SINGH

Counsel : Mr R. Kumar for the State
Mr Reddyfor the Accused
Dates of Trial : 28th; 29th; 30th September – 1st and 2nd October 2015
Summing Up : 5 October 2015
Judgment : 6 October 2015

JUDGMENT

[1] The Accused, Maan Singh is charged under Section 207(1) and (2)(b) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009 for Rape and also charged under Section 210 (1)(a) and (2) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009 for Sexual Assault on Priya Prakashni Chand, a child under the age of 13 years.

[2] He pleaded not guilty to these two charges and the ensuing trial, lasted for 5 days. The complainant and the medical officer who examined her after more than two weeks, since the alleged incident, have given evidence.

[3] At the conclusion of the evidence and after the summing up, the three assessors unanimously found the accused not guilty of the two counts against him.
[4] I direct myself in accordance with the law and the evidence which I discussed in my summing up to the assessors.

[5] Prosecution case was based only on the evidence of the complainant child. According to Priya, the accused had taken her into an empty house for three days and showed her "bad" videos and pictures on his tablet. One of these days, the accused had forcibly removed her dress and touched her legs, hands and breasts. She said the accused did "bad things" to her and had "sex" with her. Her evidence on the charge of rape was that the accused had "put his private part on my private part". She also said the accused had "raped" her. The medical evidence revealed no injuries and therefore is inconclusive in nature.

[6] In cross examination it was revealed that she had no idea as to the meaning of the words "sex" and "rape". She was merely using these words having learnt them from an Aunt. She accepted the suggestion that she made out this allegation of rape out of fear and also to avoid scolding for her bad grades at class and drawing bad pictures at school, when her Aunt questioned her in a closed room.

[7] She also admitted that she had identified a person who was arrested by the Police as the rapist and had changed her accusation later on to the accused, when he too was arrested. She denied mistaken identity of the accused, but admitted their faces are similar. Her evidence revealed that she had seen the accused many time before the alleged acts were committed. This factor rendered her claim of identifying the accused, a very unreliable to act upon.

[8] The assessors have found her evidence is not truthful and/or unreliable, as they unanimously found the accused not guilty of on both counts.

[9] Considering the nature of the evidence before the Court, it is my considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove it's the case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing truthful and reliable evidence.

[10] In my view, the assessor's opinion was not perverse. It was open for them to reach such conclusion on the available unreliable evidence. I concur with the opinion of the assessors.

[11] In the circumstances, I acquit the accused, Maan Singh, from the charge of Rape and also from the charge of Sexual Assault.
[12] This is the Judgment of the Court.

Achala Wengappuli
JUDGE

At Suva
6th October 2015

Solicitors for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.
Solicitor for the Accused : Reddy and Nandan Law, Suva.