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

State v Koroi [2015] FJMC 116; Criminal Case 722.2013 (11 September 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 722 of 2013

STATE

V

TERETI KOROI

Prosecution : PC Nilesh
Accused : Ms Dunn. S

Ruling : 11 September 2015

NO CASE TO ANSWER

1. The Accused, Tereti Koroi is charged with one count of Theft contrary to section 291 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
   
2. The particulars of the offence is that, the Accused between the 12th to the 15th day of December 2012 at Solove, Seaqaqa in the Northern Division stole 12 roofing irons valued at $360.00, 7 pairs of hinges valued at $12.00, the properties of Siliva Silinatoba.
   
3. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge on 25 February 2014, and the case proceeded for hearing on 5 May 2015.
   

4. On the hearing date, the Prosecution called six witnesses which includes one Police Officer and five civilian witnesses. One of the civilian witness is the complainant in this case. The Police Officer is the interviewing officer. The caution interview was tendered by consent as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1.

5. At the end of the prosecution case, once the Prosecution closed his case, the Defence Counsel make an oral application to file a No Case to Answer submission. The Defence Counsel filed a No Case to Answer submission on 4 June 2015. The application was made pursuant to section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009.
   
6. Section 291 (1) of the Crimes Decree provides;
   

"A person commits a summary offence if he or she dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property."

7. The Defence submit that they are not contesting that the Accused took the roofing iron. They state that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that Accused dishonestly took the roofing iron. The evidence submitted by the Prosecution has failed ownership. The Defence further submit that the element of intention to permanently deprive the owner of property cannot be established as the victim or complainant in this case is not the owner of the roofing iron. The evidence led by Prosecution is unreliable and this court should not convict on it.
   
8. The Complainant in this case as per the charge is one Siliva Silinatoba who is the first witness called by the Prosecution. This witness gave evidence on oath. In her evidence in chief, she state that the 12 second hand roofing irons and hinges with other materials belong to her deceased father. In cross examination, she confirms that the building materials own by her deceased father and she had no legal ownership over those property. In re-examination, she confirmed that she does not have legal authority over the building materials.
   
9. In light of the Complainant's evidence, I find that there is no need to proceed further on the analysis of the Prosecution's evidence. The Complainant in her evidence admit that she does not own the properties alleged to be stolen by the Accused in the charge or in this case. Prima facie, the charge cannot stand any longer as the Accused did not steal any properties of the Complainant in particular those items listed in the charge.
   
10. There are evidence that the Accused took and sold the seven roofing irons to one Basant Jeet Lal. The Defence has confirmed in their submission that they are not contesting this fact or evidence. Even with that position or evidence, the charge still cannot stand as the Prosecution is not able to prove it case beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused stole Siliva Silinatoba's properties as per the items listed in the charge as the Complainant now confirmed in her evidence that she did not own those items or properties.
    
11. Considering the above analysis of the Prosecution's evidence, I agree with the Defence that the Prosecution has not adduce sufficient evidence which this court can convict on should the Accused offer no defence. I also agree with the Defence that the Prosecution evidence is so unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.
    
12. In my ruling, I find that the case is not made out against the Accused person sufficiently to require him to make a defence. Accordingly, I allow the No Case to Answer submission filed by the Defence and I make the following orders:
    
    1. This case is dismissed.
       
    2. The Accused is acquitted.
       

Cama M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE