PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Magistrates Court of Fiji
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Magistrates Court of Fiji >> 2012 >> [2012] FJMC 43

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Singh [2012] FJMC 43; Criminal Case 648.2011 (5 March 2012)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
AT SUVA


CRIMINAL CASE NO: 648/2011
( HAC 097 OF 2008)


THE STATE


V


ROHITH ABIKESH SINGH


For the Prosecution :- Ms. Whippy (for DPP)
For the Accused :-Mr. Fesaitu (LAC)


SENTENCE


  1. Rohith Abikesh Singh, you were charged with the following offence:

Statement of Offence

Act With Intent to Cause Grievous Harm: contrary to section 255(a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.


Particulars of Offence

Rohith Abikesh Singh on 19th day of October 2011 at Samabula in the Central Division unlawfully wounded Rangeeta Lal by stabbing her with a multi pouspose knife.


  1. The case has been remitted from the High Court with extended jurisdiction under section 4(2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009.
  2. The charge was put to you on 13.02.2012 and you advised the court that you understood it. Although initially you asked further time to appeal against the rejection of your application for legal aid, later you informed court that you plead 'Guilty' to the charge.
  3. You were convicted as charged. The court adjourned to today for sentencing.
  4. Following facts were established in the Summery of Facts presented by the prosecution. The victim of this case has been previously in a de facto relationship with you. Few days before this incident the victim reported you to Samabula police station in relation to a domestic dispute.
  5. On the fateful day at around 1.30 pm the victim went to visit her aunt at 24 Sese Street in Samabula with her sister. While she was sitting on verandah you have approached her and sought reconciliation. You informed the victim that you would go to prison if she did not reconcile. The victim has asked not to touch her during this conversation.
  6. Suddenly you pulled out a multipurpose knife and threatened her to kill. Then you stabbed her on the neck. When she fell down again you stabbed her thrice on her back. Thereafter you fled from the scene. The victim was rushed to the hospital where she lost her consciousness on the way.
  7. The victim was taken in to the theatre and her life was survived due the intensive medical attention.
  8. You were later arrested by the police and you have admitted the offence in your interview under caution.
  9. The state counsel has produced the medical report of the victim as a part of the Summery of Facts. You admitted the Summery of Facts before me.
  10. Section 255(a) of the Crimes Decree 2009 states that any person who with intent to cause grievous harm, unlawfully wounds or does grievous harm to anyone by whatever means is guilty and is liable to imprisonment for life.
  11. The liable sentence referred to above indicates the seriousness of the offence for which the accused has been found guilty of.

Tariff for the Offence


  1. In terms of sentences that the court must consider, Madam Justice Shameem in State v Annamallay [2005] FJHC; HAC 004 of 2004 the tariff sentence ranges from suspended sentence where there are no or minimal injuries and where the parties have resolved their differences to 2½ years imprisonment where there was serious injury and the use of weapon was involved.

.
In State v Viliame Cavubati [2002] FJHC; HAA f 2001S the Court observed that:


'An offence of act with intent to cause grievous harm is a serious one which must almost always result in an immediate custodialence....The cases brought tght to my attention seem to bear that proposition out however given that the maximum term of imprisonment is life imprisonment, this "range" would now appear in 2010 to be rather lenient. By using such a lethal weapon, this offence should only ever attract a suspended sentence in the rarest, circumstances and sentences of up to 4 or 5 years could easily be justified.


  1. In State v. Tuigulagula (2011) FJHC 163 Hon; Justice Madigan considered that the prolonged attack of several blows on the victim was an aggravating factor. In this case the accused had been the husband of the victim. The starting point for the sentence of this case was five years. The court saw fit to sentence him to 6 years imprisonment and fixed a parole of four years.
  2. In determining the appropriate starting point of the sentence, this court has considered the need for deterrence against persons who may be similarly inclined to commit this offence.
  3. I have also considered the apparent ease with which accused persons seem to think that taking the law into their own hands is the way to settle their grievance.
  4. Having considered the judgement of State v. Tuigulagua I would take a starting point for this offence of 4 ½ years imprisonment.

Aggravating Factors


  1. There are several aggravating features however to be taken into consideration.
    1. The victim had been the de facto wife of the accused,
    2. The victim was unarmed,
    3. The incident occurred at a relative's place of the victim,
    4. It appears that there was no provocation on the part of the victim, she has only asked the accused not to touch her during the conversation,
    5. The victim was vulnerable as she was with other female relatives,
    6. Used a multipurpose knife to assault the victim,
    7. Stabbed four times on the neck and back of the victim,
  2. For the aggravating factors mentioned above, I would increase the sentence by 3 ½ years to reach the sentence 8 years imprisonment.

Mitigating Factors


  1. I must take into consideration the fact that accused did plead guilty, at the first opportunity. Full allowance must be made for the early guilty plea. I would discount the term of imprisonment by 24 months for the guilty plea.
  2. This will leave a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.
  3. In mitigation the accused and his counsel filed extensive submissions. You are a 31 year old taxi driver and looking after your mother and sister. You have stated that you are the sole provider of the family. You are now remorseful for what happened. I deduct a further period of 4 months for your remorse and other mitigation. In this instance the sentence is 5 years and 8 months imprisonment.
  4. Furthermore, in pursuant to section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree I reduce another 4 months for the period that you were in remand prior to this sentence.
  5. Now your sentence stands at 5 years and 4 months.
  6. Your long record of violent behaviour does not afford any credit to you. Out of seven previous convictions you have been convicted twice for the same offence of "Act with Intent to Cause Grievous Harm".
  7. I am of the view that a violent and repeat offender cannot expect any mercy from the Court.
  8. Hence you are sentenced to 5 years and 4 months for the offence of "Act with Intent to Cause Grievous Harm". You will serve four years of that term before being eligible for parole.
  9. Since this court exercising the extended jurisdiction of the High Court in your case, you may appeal against this sentence within 30 days with leave of the Court of Appeal.

On this 05th Day of March 2012


YOHAN LIYANAGE
Resident Magistrate, Suva.

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJMC/2012/43.html