IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No. 881 of 2006

STATE

V

TEVITA VAKATALAI
&
JITOKO RUPENI

Prosecution: Insp. Gosai
Defendant: In Person.

JUDGMENT

Two accused have been charged for Robbery with violence contrary to S293 1(b) of the P.C. CAP 17. Particulars are on 23rd April 2006 at Lami they robbed a taxi driver Moh’d Rafiq of $40 cash and at time of robbery used personal violence.

The first accused Tevita Vakatalai pleaded guilty on his own free will at the end of the prosecution case. I stood down his case to be dealt with after this judgment.

Accused 2 elected to give un-sworn statement. He denied punching the taxi driver. He said he didn’t know anything about the robbery.

The facts are the complainant dropped a job at Lami. Two youths including the 1st and 2nd defendants asked him to drop them to Lami. The driver refused. They got out and came to the driver’s side. One punched the driver whilst the other took $40 from his front shirt pocket. He identified the accused. He said accused two punched him. Driver reported to police. On investigation the accused were charged. Medical examination shows injury to forehead area and jaw of driver. Diagnosis is consistent with being punched or fisted. The torn shirt pocket of driver is also exhibited in evidence.

Accused two in cross-examination of complainant said he was at the back of the taxi and did not take any part in robbery.

The PW2 (Lanieta Cakacaka) gave evidence. She stood a few meters from the taxi and saw the robbery. She told court "That Tevita punched the driver and A2 grabbed money from driver's pocket." She identified them both. She knew both from before and they lived in the same settlement as her’s. She was their relative and grew up together since childhood.

Upon whole of evidence I find that the evidence of this witness was very positive and credible and was straight forward in describing what she had seen. Her identification was impeccable. 

I do not accept the version given by the accused. He was present there and PW2 identified him positively as the person who grabbed the money while A1 had punched the driver.

Any discrepancy in evidence of complainant is not material. The driver said the person who took out the money was not in court. However, PW2 is an independent eye witness who totally described the incident which I accept as true.

I find the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and A2 is found guilty as charged.

Dated this on the 29th day of September 2006.

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE