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

State v Nagalu [2010] FJMC 163; Criminal Case 430.2010 (23 September 2010)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: 430 of 2010

STATE

V

EPARAMA NAGALU

For Prosecution: Ms. Low. P (DPP Office)
Accused: Present in Person

JUDGMENT

1. Accused in this case is charged for the following offences namely:
   
   1. 02 counts of Dangerous Driving – (Contrary to Sec. 98(1) and 114 of the Land Transport Authority Act 35 of 1998)
      
   2. 02 counts of Fail to Stop after an Accident – (Contrary to Regulation 63(1) and 87 of the Land Transport (Traffic) Regulation 2000)
      
   3. 02 counts of Fail to Report after an Accident – (Contrary to Regulation 63(2)(a) and 87 of the Land Transport (Traffic) Regulation 2000)
      
   4. 02 counts of Driving a Motor Vehicle without a Driving Licence– (Contrary to Sec. 56 (3)(a) and 114 of the Land Transport Authority Act 35 of 1998)
      
   5. 02 counts of Driving a Motor Vehicle in Contravention of the Third Party policy Risks– (Contrary to sec. 04 of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Policy Insurance) Act 177.)
      
2. Five witnesses testified for the prosecution and accused gave evidence on oath.
   
3. According to PW-1, on 05th July 2008 at about 03. 20 a. m. he was driving his vehicle registered as FH-706 along the Princess Road. When he reached the Keba Street which was to his left, one 4x4 vehicle came from Keba Street, and had collided with his vehicle. As that vehicle did not stop after the accident witness could not identify the vehicle or the driver.
   
4. According to PW-2, on 05th July 2008 he with another police officer had followed a vehicle registered as "Media 1" which is involved in a Robbery. When they reached the intersection near Keba Street they had witnessed Media 1, parked about 20 meters away. They have then parked their vehicle and waited for any movements from Media 1.
   
5. Suddenly Media 1 had made a U turn and come straight towards the parked police vehicle and hit the police vehicle head on. PW-2 had jumped off the vehicle and had been hiding close by. People who got out from Media 1 had assaulted the other officer who was inside the police vehicle. Then again Media 1 gone towards the Princess Road and at the same time witness had heard another bang as if two vehicles were colliding with each other. According to PW-2 incident took place in early morning.
   
6. PW-3 confirmed the evidence given by PW-2 and informed that he was sitting in the driver's seat of the fleet vehicle GN-356, with PW-2 before the accident. PW-3 said that he was assaulted by the occupants of Media 1 for about 3-5 minutes and during the whole time driver of the Media 1 was sitting in the driver's seat. PW-3 identified the driver of the Media 1 as the accused and said in court that he could not take that incident off from his mind.
   
7. According to the witness, accused is familiar to him and he may have seen him driving a taxi when he was doing his road block duties. During the cross-examination following question was put to the witness by the accused.
   

Q – I put it to you that on 05th July 2008 was the first time you saw me sitting on the driver's seat?
A – No I have seen you somewhere.

8. Since, the accused was adamant that he did not want legal representation; I several times had to prevent the accused from asking self-incriminating questions from the witnesses. However, most of the time accused refused to take Court's advice and the above-mentioned question was a result of such refusal from the accused.
   
9. PW-4 marked the cautioned interview notes as PE-1 and accused did not challenge the cautioned interview. PW-5 gave evidence with regards to preparing of the sketch plan.
   
10. At the end of the prosecution case accused giving evidence said that he knows noting about the case.
    

Analysis

11. It is established from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, the vehicle Media 1 was involved in a Robbery and it had been driving on the Princess Road in a manner which was dangerous to the public.
    
12. It was further established that "Media 1" was involved in an accident with GN-356. Soon after that accident Media 1 had gone towards the Princess Road along Keba Street. PW-1 gave evidence to the effect that his vehicle FH-706 met with an accident with a vehicle which came along the Keba Street and PW-1 was driving his vehicle along the Princess Road.
    
13. According to the PW-2, incident took place in early morning and this fact confirmed by PW-1. Therefore it is safe to assume that it was Media 1 which hit the PW-1's vehicle on 05th July 2008.
    
14. It is established that the Media 1 did not stop after two accidents and both the accidents never had been reported to the police.
    
15. PW-3 was very positive about the identity of the driver of Media 1 and without any hesitation identified the accused. Accused on the other hand by suggesting that it was the first time PW-3 had saw him on the driver's seat, implicated him to the incident.
    
16. Since the PW-3 was very positive about the identification of the driver of PW-3, I choose not to give any weight to the accused person's self-incriminating question.
    
17. Considering these facts, I am satisfied that the identity of the driver of Media-1 had been established beyond reasonable doubt.
    
18. Even though accused chose to deny any knowledge of the incident I am satisfied that the prosecution had proved all the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Accused had failed to provide any defence to the satisfaction to the Court. I find accused guilty as charged and convict accordingly.
    

On this Thursday the 23rd day of September 2010

Kaweendra Nanayakkara
Resident Magistrate