IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 29 of 2014

STATE

V

ALIPATE RARAWA

Counsel: Mr. Y Prasad with Ms. S. Naibe for the State
Ms. P. Chand (L.A.C.) for the accused.

Date of conviction: 7 October 2015
Dates of Sentence:12 October 2015

SENTENCE

[1] The accused has been convicted by this Court of the lesser offence of manslaughter, after being tried for murder. 

[2] The accused and the deceased were brother and sister. They and two other siblings were raised single handedly by their mother, the father having deserted the family over 20 years ago. That abandonment led to a bitter family feud in which there was no contact between the maternal family and the paternal family for all of those years. However those simmering resentments were about to come to a tragic denouement on the 6th January, 2014.

[3] On that day (6.1.14) the accused had heard that his sister, on the suggestion of the mother, had approached a paternal uncle for help in providing mats for their brother's upcoming wedding. He was very unhappy about that and he resolved to question his mother and sister about it that evening. At about 9pm he went to them and raised the subject. A heated argument developed between the three of them. At the time the sister (deceased) was sitting in the kitchen cooking food in a frying pan over a lit kerosene stove. The arguments became worse and when the sister abused the accused with swear words he could take no more. He beat the ground with his fists and ran into the kitchen where he upturned the frying pan with its boiling oil content onto his sister's legs and stomach. He then kicked the kerosene stove which landed on her and set her alight. Her clothes burst into flames and she ran around trying to rip them off until she was covered with a bed sheet.

[4] She was taken to hospital where she died 6 days later. A post mortem revealed that she died from 1st degree burns which covered 70% of her body. 

[5] The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 25 years imprisonment and the accepted tariff for the offence is from a suspended sentence up to 12 years imprisonment. This is a very wide tariff and provides for the myriad circumstances in which the offence may be committed. Suspended sentences and terms of incarceration at the lower end of the scale will usually be passed where there is a high degree of provocation. The degree of violence used against a victim will determine where on the sentencing band the starting point will be taken. Adjustments can then be made for aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and finally an appropriate downward scaling after assessing the degree of provocation if any. 

[6] Defence counsel asks me to take into account that there was no weapon used in this case. This is a submission that the Court cannot possibly accept. Certainly there were no weapons in the traditional sense but fire can be a weapon as minacious as a cane knife or shotgun. 

[7] It is an aggravating factor that this was a case of domestic violence. The spirit of the Domestic Violence Decree would preclude a suspended sentence being passed for the offence of manslaughter in a domestic violence context. It is also an aggravation that these horrific actions were effected in the presence of his sister's other family members including children. 

[8] In mitigation I take into account his obvious remorse, his clear record and his relative youth. 

[9] For the abominable conduct leading to sororicide, I take a starting point of 7 years imprisonment. I add two years for the aggravating features alluded to above and for the mitigation features I deduct three years. This period includes the 3 months he has already spent in custody for this offence. 

[10] From this interim total of 6 years I consider the degree of provocation:

[11] I accept that for a young itaukei male, to be sworn at by his sister and called names implying his lack of worth and laziness, coupled with what he perceived to be a treacherous assault on the family understanding of no contact with paternal relatives are matters which can only have been seriously provocative. In addition to that she was seemingly rejecting his authority in being able to organize the wedding.

[12] I deduct therefore a term of two years imprisonment to recognize those circumstances. 

[13] The accused will serve a sentence of 4 years imprisonment for this offence with a minimum term of three years before he is to be considered for parole. 

P.K. Madigan
Judge

At Suva
12 October, 2015