Singh v State [2015] FJCA 179; AAU134.2014 (1 December 2015)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
[On Appeal from the High Court]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. AAU134 of 2014
[High Court Case No. HAC 90/11L]

BETWEEN:

AVNIT SINGH
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram : Goundar JA
Counsel : Mr. M. Yunus for the Appellant
Mr. M. Korovou for the Respondent

Date of Hearing : 28 October 2015
Date of Ruling : 1 December 2015

RULING

[1] The appellant was charged with one count of murder contrary to section 237 of the Crimes Decree 2009. The assessors found him not guilty. The trial judge in a judgment delivered on 16 September 2014, convicted the appellant, and on 26 September 2014, sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years.

[2] This is a timely application for leave to appeal against conviction on the following grounds:

Ground A Ground B Ground C Ground D Ground E Ground F

That the learned Judge has erred in law and in fact when he misdirected himself about the evidence contained in the caution interview of the appellant in respect of its truth and/or credibility and the weight to be given to the confessions. That the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact to admit the confession in voir dire as there was serious doubt the voluntariness and the truth or correctness of the said confessions for the reasons inter alia that prime prosecution witness Sunita Devi in her evidence in chief said, "she had seen the police officers assaulting the accused for 2-3 minutes at Namaka Police Station ... At Lautoka Police Station she has told the accused to tell the truth so that they will not beat him." That the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact when he did not direct himself that prosecution witness Sunita Devi, who was granted immunity would have implicated the Appellant. That the learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when allowing hearsay evidence of the prosecution witness namely Subarmani Mudaliar and then not directing his mind on the rule against hearsay. That the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact when he failed to properly direct his mind to the alibi evidence of the Appellant's father. That the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact when he did not correctly direct himself on how to approach circumstantial evidence and what weight to be attached to it.

[3] Both parties have filed helpful submissions. The appellant stand convicted of a serious offence. The test for leave is whether any ground of appeal is arguable.

[4] After considering the submissions of both parties, I feel satisfied that the appeal is arguable and not frivolous. In these circumstances, I grant leave on all grounds.

[5] Result

Leave granted.

.....................................
Hon. Justice Daniel Goundar
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

Solicitors:
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for the Appellant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State