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

State v Lal [2016] FJMC 195; Criminal Case 242.2016 (22 September 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT NAUSORI

IN THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
Criminal Case No: 242/16

State

.V.

Kavneel Kishant Lal

Prosecution : DPP

Accused : Present - Represented by Mr. R Kumar (Legal Aid)

Sentence

___________________________________________________

Introduction

Kavneel Kishant Lal is charged as follows:

Count One

Act Intended To Cause Grievous Harm, contrary to Section 255 (a) of the Crimes Decree Number 44 of 2009.

Particulars of offence (b)

Kavneel Kishant Lal on the 6^th day of July, 2016, at Lakena Hill No.1, Nausori in the Central Division, with intent to cause grievous harm to Subramani unlawfully wounded the said Subramani, with a piece of timber.

When the charges were read out and explained to the accused, he informed the Court that he understood it and then on his own free he pleaded guilty to the charge. The statement of facts were read out and he admitted the facts in Court. He was convicted as per the charge by the Court.

The Maximum

The offence carries a maximum of life imprisonment. The High Court has extended the power of this Court to deal with the Charge.
The Tariff

The tariff for the offence is from a suspended sentence to 5 years imprisonment.

In State v Chand [2011] FJHC 19; HAC07.2011 (27 January 2011), Justice Madigan stated:

“The maximum penalty for the offence of act with intent to cause grievous harm is imprisonment for life. This is an offence relatively new to the jurisdiction, introduced by the Crimes Decree 2009 on February 1st, 2010. Until a body of sentencing authorities is secured, it is helpful to rely on the analogous section 224 of the old Penal Code, the offence of an act intended to cause grievous harm . It was establ in ViliaViliame Cavubati – HAA 80 of 2001 by Shameem J. that the accepted tariff for this offence should range frouspended sentence through to 2 ½ years. This Court said in Amasi Korovata ̵– HAC 11 of 2009 that the range now should extend up to 4 to 5 years.”

The Mitigating Factors

The accused is 23 years and single. Seeking forgiveness. A first offender and pleaded guilty on first available opportunity. Seeking forgiveness and leniency. Remorseful for his actions. Joiner earning $100/week. Had reacted after catching the complainant peeping inside his house at his mother

The Sentence

The actions of the accused are not condoned. The Court notes the tariff of the offence and the circumstances of the offending.

The Court takes a starting point of 24 months. For the guilty plea and mitigation this court gives 8 months discount. The sentence for the accused is 18 months imprisonment.

This Court has carefully weighed all the information that is before it and the situation leading to the action of the accused person. It has noted the guilty plea of the accused person, previous good character and the circumstances of the offending and for this reason the court will suspend the sentences of the accused person. The 18 months imprisonment term is suspended for 2 years. The accused is explained the meaning of suspended sentence in open Court.

Sentence Summary

18 months/suspended for 2 years.

Right to appeal.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
22^nd September 2016