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

State v Isoof - Sentence [2022] FJHC 21; HAC161.2019 (21 January 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Crim. Case No: HAC 161 of 2019

STATE

vs.

MUHAMMAD RAHEESH ISOOF

Counsel: Mr. S. Babitu with Mr. Tuenuku and Ms. Lata for the State
Mr. I. Khan for the Accused

Date of Voir Dire Hearing: 23^rd December 2021
Date of Hearing: 15^th December 2021 – 17^th December 2021,
20^th December 2021,

22^nd December 2021 – 24^th December 2021,

29^th December 2021 – 30^th December 2021,

3^rd January 2022 – 4^th January 2022,

6^th January 2022 – 7^th January 2022
Date of Judgment: 19^th January 2022
Date of Sentence: 21^st January 2022

SENTENCE

1. Mr Muhammed Raheesh Issof, you stand convicted for five counts of Murder, contrary to Sections 237 of the Crimes Act, and one count of Attempted Murder, contrary to Section 44 and 237 of the Crimes Act, which carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
It was proved that you had murdered Mr Nirmal Kumar, Ms Usha Devi, Ms Kajal Nni, Ms Sanah Singh and Ms Samarah Singh by poisoning on then the 25th of August 2019. It was further proved that you had attempted to murder baby Samaira Kumar on the 25th of August 2019. Murder is the most serious offence against a person. The punishment for the offence of Murder is a mandatentence of life imprisonmenonment. However, the sentencing court has been given judicial discretion to set a minimum term to be served before pardon may be considered. The minimum term to be served does not mean early release upon serving that term. It only allows the Accused to make a petition to the Mercy Commission to recommend for a pardon under Section 119 (3) of the Constitution.
4. This crime is a sorrowful tragedy of betrayal and breach of trust. You, being the best and trusted friend of Nirmal Kumar, had taken five lives of your best friend’s family, including your best friend, by poisoning with the intention to cause their death or was reckless of causing their deaths. In the same transaction, you had attempted to murder baby Samira Kumar by abandoning her at a remote, isolated location with no food, water or protection. As the learned counsel for the Prosecution stated in the Sentencing Submissions, you have taken the lives of three generations of Nirmal’s family.
5. The learned counsel for the Defence submitted in your mitigation submissions that you are 65 years nd suffering from several health issues. As stated by the lthe learned counsel for the Defence, several Prosecution witnesses testified, saying that you are a good person with a good character. You have two previous convictions recorded in 1984 and 1992; that was probably when you were in your youth ages. It appears that you have matured in your life since then with a stable and unblemished character until you are found guilty of this crime.
Having considered these reasons, I exercise my discretion under Section 237 of the Crimes Act to set a um term of 20 years to be s be served before pardon may be considered for each count.
7. Accordingly, I sentence you as follows that;
1. Firs>First Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years served before a pardon may be considered,
2. Second Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before a pardon may be considered,
3. Third Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minierm of 20 years to be served before a pardon may be considered,
4. Fourth Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before a pardon mayonsidered,
5. Fifth Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before a pardon may be considered,
tyle='text-indent:0ptt:0pt; margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt;' value='6' >Sixth Count of Attempted Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years toerved before a pardon may be considered,