State v Sami [1995] FJHC 78; Hac0003t.93s (28 April 1995)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(SUVA)
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC.0003 OF 1993

STATE

-v-

SHIU SAMI
s/o NARAYAN SAMI

ACT INTENDED TO CAUSE GRIEVOUS HARM:
Contrary to Section 224(a) of the Penal Code, Cap.17.

Ms. Rice and Mr. Balram for State
Mr. D. Sharma for Accused

SENTENCE

This is a very serious and a very bad case indeed. The accused carried his intention to harm Dharmendra Kumar and Umlesh Lata regardless whether they lost their lives as a result.

When arrested accused was found to be carrying a dagger with the intention of using it on Dharmendra and Umlesh. On the day in question he tried to run down both Dharmendra and Umlesh but was only successful in mowing down Dharmendra with a car he was driving at a high speed in a very busy Housing Estate at Valelevu even when he did not possess a valid Driving Licence. It is fortunate that Dharmendra did not lose his life as a result of accused dangerous and thoughtless act but Dharmendra suffered a fractured tibia and fibula in his left leg causing him extreme pain and suffering. Accused had planned to carry out his intention for sometime. It was not an act that occurred in the heat of passion or on sudden impulse, it was an act which was planned. He went searching for both Dhamendra and Umlesh until he found out where they lived in Valelevu. Accused did not stay away from them after he was warned by the police in Lautoka to keep away from them as they were legally married.

I have taken into account the very eloquent plea in mitigation by Mr.Sharma and I have also borne in mind accused's plea of guilty and the fact that he is a first offender, but all these factors could not take away the seriousness of the accused's act.

This court must impose a sentence which should meet the seriousness of the accused's act and as a deterrent to him and would be offenders and one which would show that it abhors and that it regards acts like the accused's as very serious and would not hesitate to impose severe punishment in the circumstances to drive the point home that crime does not pay.

Having regards to the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, I find that a custodial sentence is inevitable to meet the seriousness of accused's act, but in deciding the appropriate term of imprisonment to be imposed, I have given serious consideration to the existence of mitigating factors.

The accused is therefore sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and I so order.

S W Kepa
JUDGE

28th April, 1995

HAC0003T.93S