IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No.357 of 2007

STATE

V

SEMESA SOKO

Before Ajmal Gulab Khan Esq

Date of Hearing: 30/05/07
Date of Judgment: 08/06/07

Prosecution: Insp. S. Gosai
Accused: In Person

JUDGMENT

The accused has been charged for Robbery with violence Contrary to S293 (1) of the Penal Code.

Particulars are Semesa Soko on 17th February 2007 at Nabua robbed Vijay Singh of $530 cash, body cream $90 and shampoo of $12 and immediately before robbery used personal violence on Vijay Singh.

Prosecution evidence is on 17th February 2007 Vijay Singh and family were at home at Vatuwaqa. He was in the sitting room with his daughter –in-law and her 2 year old baby. His wife went to the front door to close it for the night. She was about to padlock it, when it was pushed from outside. She pushed the door and yelled for help. Vijay Singh came to assist in pushing the door closed from inside. The 1st man outside hit Vijay’s wife in the stomach and she fell. The first person entered the house. The 1st person punched Vijay Singh on his face and told him not to yell. The second one came and turned the lights in sitting room and the front porch off. Three others entered the house. They made the family sit on the settee and threatened to kill if they made noise.

They searched the whole house. The first one who entered the house was known to complainant. He had a bini on but face was open. He was recognized in the lights of the porch when pushing door open and in the sitting room before the lights were turned off by the 2nd person. They left with items in the charge valued $632. The neighbours rang the police who came within a few minutes of the robbery.

Full description of 1st accused was given with clothes he was wearing to police. Within 30 minutes police brought a person for identification. He was identified by witnesses as the 1st person who had entered their house. He was also identified as the same person as accused in the dock.

Police later charged him and produced him to court on 20th February 2007. Nothing was recovered by police.

The complainants’ version of facts were confirmed by his daughter-in-law Wendy Singh. She was visiting her in-laws with her 2 year old son. She is originally from United Kingdom. She saw the accused hit her mother in-law in her stomach to allow him entry from the front door. She helped to push but didn’t have the strength. They sat them in sitting room settee and searched the house. She saw the 1st accused had an iron rod in hand when he came out of the rooms. She saw all four in house. She recognized the accused as the 1st person who had pushed in the main door. She identified him to police by the clothes he wore and his face. The 1st accused had punched her on the chin and told her to sit on settee. She gave full description of clothes to police and to court.

The police officers gave evidence. They went towards the way suspects had ran that night. On information they found the 1st accused at a house nearby. He wore the clothes as described by the witnesses. He was arrested and taken to the complainants’ house for identification. He was identified as the person who had entered the house that night.

The investigation officer described how officers who were part of a national operation support unit arrested accused on information within 20 minutes of the robbery.

The accused in his defence elected to remain silent. He also didn’t call any witnesses.

IDENTIFICATION

The accused was identified by the complainant and Wendy Singh as the 1st person who entered their house. His clothes and description was given to police. Within 20 minutes he was found in the area and wore the same clothes as described by the complainants.

In his caution interview voluntarily given to police, he admitted wearing the same clothes as described by the complaintants’.

I find that the two witnesses gave a vivid description and had ample opportunity to see him in good light. When he tried to force the door and when he assaulted them inside the house. The bulb at main door and the 4 feet tube lights in the sitting room would be sufficient to recognize the suspect positively. 

His clothes also were well noted and described by Wendy Singh. It was more than a fleeting glance and both the witnesses described him positively. I find that the accused is the person who forced the house door and was the 1st person who entered the house of the complainants’ that night. He is the one who threw punches at the occupants of the house to threaten them to remain silent while he and others went about their business.

I find the prosecution witnesses credible and accept their evidence as true description of events that night of robbery. 

I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt particularly the robbery and violence associated with it on the night of 17th February 2007 by the 1st accused.

I find the accused guilty as charged.

Dated this on the 8th of June 2007.

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE