IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 04 of 2015

STATE

V

BESUN DEO
1st Accused
SHAREEN WATI RAJ
2nd Accused

Counsels:	Mr. L. Fotofili for the State
		Mr. R. Vananalagi for the 1st Accused
		Mr. A. Paka (L.A.C.) for the 2nd Accused

Dates of Conviction	:    2 September 2016
Date of Judgment	:    2 September 2016

JUDGMENT

[1]	Both accused jointly faced the following charge:

Statement of Offence

MURDER: Contrary to Section 237 (a), (b) and (c) of the Crimes Decree No: 44 of 2009.
Particulars of Offence

BESUN DEO and SHAREEN WATI RAJ on the 13th day of January 2015 at Labasa in the Northern Division murdered PARMA NAND.

[2]	After trial three assessors returned with unanimous opinions of 	guilty in respect of each of the accused. 

[3]	After taking time to reflect on the evidence and on directing 	itself on the summing up, the Court concurred with the 	assessors and made a finding of guilty against each accused 	and convicted each accordingly.

[4]	The evidence against each of the accused was overwhelming.

[5]	Apart from the clear and unshaken evidence of a witness to the 	murder (PW1)  each of the accused had confessed to his/her 	role in the murder; confessions which were admitted in evidence 	after a voir dire and obviously accepted as voluntary and true by 	the three assessors.

[6]	The first accused ran the defence of alibi which had been 	undisclosed in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules 	and which flew in the face of his position at trial where it was 	accepted that he was at the scene of the Crime. The alibi was 	not believed.

[7]	The second accused too ran a defence of alibi and hers was 	disclosed.  Unfortunately her evidence and the evidence of her 	alibi witness differed in material aspects and it was impossible 	to believe. 

[8]	The first accused opposed the use of his confession by alleging 	police brutality but I did not believe his evidence as it was “over-	egged” and there was no evidence of injury or complaint and 	there would have been had he been assaulted to the degree he 	claimed.

[9]	The second accused’s allegations of brutality were also over 	exaggerated and were not supported by any medical or other 	supporting evidence. Her evidence that the confessions in her 	interview were fabricated cannot be true given the 	circumstantial evidence corroborating her answers. 

[10]	Even if the assessors had rejected the evidence of the 	interviews, the evidence of the eye-witness was consistent and 	was evidence which substantiated the confessions of both 	accused. 

[11]	I have no doubt whatsoever that the State has discharged its  	burden in respect of both accused and I find them both guilty as 	charged. They are convicted accordingly.

[12]	That is the judgment of the Court.

						P. K. Madigan
						    Judge

At Labasa
2 September 2016