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

State v Nadavelevu [2013] FJMC 313; Criminal Case 1225.2010 (26 August 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case : 1225/2010

STATE

VS

MIRIAMA NADAVELU

For Prosecution : PC Josua
For Accused : In person .

Judgment

[1] The accused has been charged with the following offence in this Court.

Statement of Offence (a)

INDECENTLY ANNOYING PERSON: - Contrary to Section 213(a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence (b)

MIRIAMA NADAVELEVU, on the 25th day of April, 2010 at Lami in the Central Division, with intent to insult the modesty of RAIJELI RAIKADROKA, uttered the words "magaijinamudrau", intending that such words be heard by the said RAIJIELI RAIKADROKA.

[2] The accused denied the charge and the hearing was taken before RM Girihagama on 24/06/2013. When this was mentioned before me the accused informed she has no objection for me to continue from that stage. The accused also opted to remain silent for the defence.

[3] For the prosecution's case 04 witnesses (02 civil witnesses and 02 police officers) were called to give evidence. Both parties opted not to file any closing submissions.

Summary of Evidence

[4] PW1 was Raijile Raikadrova, the complainant in the case. She stated that on 25/04/2010 she was at Lami town with her mom and a cousin and there the accused swore at her saying 'magaitinamu'. PW1 was upset from that. In cross examination she said it was the accused who said the words and her cousin also witnessed it.

[5] PW2 was Fipe Raikadroka who was with the PW1 at the time of the incident. She also heard the accused swearing at PW1. This position she maintained in her cross examination too.

[6] PW3 was Cpl 3254 Lote the Interviewing Officer and he tendered the Caution Statement as EX-01. The Charge Statement was marked as EX-04 through PW4, the charging officer.

[7] After the prosecution closed the case the Court found that there was a case against the accused and she was given her rights pursuant to section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Decree. The accused opted to remain silent.

The Law

[8] The accused has been charged with one count of Indecently Annoying Person contrary to section 213 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree. Section 213(1) (a) states:

"A person commits a summary offence if he or she, intending to insult the modesty of any person

(a) utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by the other person"

[9] The prosecution has the burden to prove all the elements in this offence beyond reasonable doubt. Based on the facts in this case the elements that have to be proved are;

a. The accused

b. Intending to insult the modesty of the complainant

c. Utters any word

d. Intending that such words shall be heard by the complainant.

[10] In State v LIVAI TAMANALEVU [2012] FJHC 1295; HAC 344 OF 2011S) His Lordship Justice Temo in his summing up described the burden in criminal case as follows:-

"The standard of proof in a criminal trial, is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that you must be satisfied, so that you are sure of the accused's guilt, before you can express an opinion that he is guilty. If you have any reasonable doubt about his guilt, then you must express an opinion, that he is not guilty. "

Analysis of the Evidence

[11] PW1 in her evidence said on 25/04/2010 at Lami Town the accused swore at her. The accused in her cross examination failed to raise any doubt about this evidence.

[12] This evidence was corroborated by PW2, who was also present at that time. Again this evidence was not challenged by the accused.

[13] The accused did not give evidence. This is her right. But she did not also call any other witnesses . But in her caution interview she admitted asking them the reason for looking at her.

[14] Even though these evidence were not given before me I have no reason to doubt the PW1's evidence.

[15] For the reasons mentioned above I accept that the prosecution has proved this charge beyond reasonable doubt. I convict the accused accordingly.

[16] 28 days to appeal

26/08/2013

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate