IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 05 of 2016

STATE

v

NAVINESH NIRMAL PRASAD

Counsels:		Mrs. D. Kumar for the State
			Mr. A. Sen for the Defendant 

Dates of Hearing		: 	16 - 20 July 2018
Date of Summing Up	:    	23 July 2018
Date of Judgment	:  	24 July 2018

JUDGMENT

1.	Ravinesh Nirmal Prasad (“the accused”) has been tried on one 	count of possession of illicit drugs and two counts of cultivation 	of illicit drugs.

2.	Three assessors returned after trial with unanimous findings of 	not guilty on each charge.

3.	The prosecution case alleged that on the 7th February 2016, a 	party of police from 3 Northern Division stations, raided the 	home of the accused and found a small amount of dried 	marijuana leaves and a tiny amount of marijuana seeds.

4.	It was further alleged that the accused then told the officers 	that he was cultivating plants some distance from the house, 	and that he was willing to take them there. He did in fact take 	the officers to the two sites and showed them 11 mature plants 	at one site and 8 small plants at another site. He identified 	them as marijuana plants.

5.	It is alleged further by the State that after the up-rooted plants 	and the accused were delivered to the Seaqaqa Police Station, 	he was interviewed under caution. In the course of that 	interview (the record of which was admitted into evidence by 	this Court after a voire dire) the accused is purported to have 	confessed to growing the plants which he claimed were 	marijuana plants. He also admitted possession of part of the 	exhibits found in his bedroom. 

6.	The exhibits were all examined by the Police Forensic scientist 	and the weight of the drugs and the illicit nature of them were 	certified by her and are the weights and drug referred to in the 	charges. 

7.	The accused gave evidence in his own defence after a no case to 	answer submission was rejected. 

8.	He told the Court that when he was awoken at about 5am on 	the 7th he was ambushed by about 20 officers who forced their 	way into his house without saying why they were there and 	without showing him a search warrant. His room was searched 	and he claimed that the items found were not his. When he 	denied knowledge of the items produced he said that he was 	assaulted by being slapped and pushed to the wall. He was then 	led to places that the Police knew about and where there were 	marijuana plants growing. He had never been to those places 	before and knew nothing about the plants. He never saw the 	plants again after they had been uprooted. 

9.	The accused said that his interview was a sham. He was 	frightened and scared of further assault. He was told what to 	say by the Police and he was forced to sign it. Moreover his 	standard of English was poor and he wasn’t aware that he could 	be interviewed in Hindi. The confessions were definitely not his 	but in his fear he gave the answers that the Police wanted him 	to give.

Analysis

10.	It was quite apparent during trial that the case had been very 	poorly prepared. Statements were missing and not disclosed 	and the “bedroom” exhibits were missing. 

11.	The officers gave evidence which in many respects contradicted 	each other and some witnesses were not adequately prepared to 	give evidence. Not one of them was able to refer to a notebook or 	other notes to refresh his memory. Photographs were taken on 	the team leader’s mobile phone but were never properly 	developed nor produced at trial. 

12.	Some witnesses expanded on their original evidence adding 	undisclosed evidence to the prejudice of the accused.

13.	Most importantly there was no evidence as to the chain of 	evidence relating to movement of the exhibits. It was “assumed” 	that the plants seized were delivered to the station and kept 	there to be shown to the suspect in his interview but there was 	no evidence of that. No detail was given as to who carried the 	plants out from the farm or who took them back to the station 	or who received them at the station and recorded them as 	exhibits. 

14.	There was no evidence given as to the production of plants 	before the chemist or her Superior nor of the weighing of the 	plants. The chemist is not a “Government” chemist in terms of 	section 36 (1) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act and as a result her 	Certificate is not prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 	The only manner therefore that her evidence could be received 	is in strict compliance with the rules of evidence in relation to 	movement of the exhibits tested and those rules were not 	complied with. 

15.	Given the terrible preparation of this prosecution, or the lack of 	it, and given the poor way that evidence against the accused 	was adduced before me coupled with a total lack of evidence 	relating to movement of the exhibits, it would be dangerous to 	convict the accused on the evidence.

16.	The Court cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the 	accused was treated fairly or sure that the drug samples tested 	were in fact those seized at the plantations or in the house. 

17.	What did seem at first blush an overwhelming case against the 	accused became a doubtful case because of the break in the 	chain of evidence relating to the drugs and because of the 	sloppy way in which the case was prepared and presented.

18.	The Court has no option but to agree with the assessors 	unanimous opinions. 

19.	The accused is found not guilty on each count and is acquitted 	accordingly. 

20.	That is the judgment of the Court.

	     P.K. Madigan
        Judge

At Labasa
24 July 2018