State v Rakabuta [1990] FJHC 48; Hac0005t.90s (7 June 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Criminal Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5 OF 1990

STATE

v.

1. NIKOTIMO RAKABUTA
2. NAIBUKA RALEVULEVU

MANSLAUGHTER: Contrary to Section 198
of the Penal Code, Cap. 17

Mr. S. Hettige for the State
Mr. Q. Bale for both Accused Persons

SENTENCE

The accused have been convicted on their guilty pleas to an offence of Manslaughter. The facts outlined by the prosecution and admitted by both accused persons has been extensively and minutely canvassed by learned defence counsel.

I have carefully considered the various factual features that have been so ably highlighted by defence counsel but I cannot ignore the unshakable impression left on the court that these 2 accused persons in an intoxicated state had gone to Umesh Chand's compound not merely to enquire about a dog but in addition to do something about it.

Their subsequent behaviour upon learning that the dog had died and been buried and their insistence that its remains be exhumed was not only in extremely bad taste it was also accompanied by gratuitous violence and aggression.

Learned counsel suggests that the deceased Hari Dutt "intervened" in the affair and it was only then that both accused persons became involved with him but that ignores the fact that only moments before Hari Dutt had been talking with Umesh Chand when their conversation was rudely cut-short by the 2 accused persons.

Furthermore the deceased's "intervention" if it can be properly termed as such was directed at Umesh Chand and not the 2 accused persons.

Needless to say the deceased's pre-existing heart condition can not conceal the external injuries he received or the fact that he was punched, forcibly taken to the grave site and physically shaken and then punched again rendering him unconscious from which he never recovered.

I have considered the personal circumstances of both accused persons so eloquently urged in the court by their counsel and in particular their guilty pleas and the fact that they have both already spent over 6 months in custody but people who take the law into their own hands must face the consequences of their wilful conduct.

It is perhaps unfortunate that Hari Dutt died but he was an elderly man of 65 years which fact would have been obvious to both accused persons before they became involved with him.

In my view this is a case which calls for a deterrent custodial sentence. Accordingly the most lenient sentence of the court is that each of the accused persons is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
6th July, 1990.

HAC0005T.90S