State v Mani [2001] FJHC 234; HAC0005.2000S (3 October 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0005 OF 2000S

STATE

V

ANAND DINESH MANI s/o Subramani;

AND:

ANAND AVINESH MANI s/o Subramani

Mr W. Kurisaqila for State
Mr M. Raza for Accused Persons

Hearing: 1st October 2001
Ruling: 3rd October 2001

RULING

The prosecution has closed its case and counsel for the defence makes a submission that there is no case for the second accused Anand Avinesh Mani, to answer.

The second accused is charged on one count of murder. It is alleged that on the 18th day of December 1999, he murdered Sumasafu Mario Makrava at Suva. It is not in dispute that the test to apply at this stge is whether on the evidence led so far, there is some evidence that the accused committed the offence.

Counsel for the defence submits that there is no evidence that the first and second accused acted in concert, or that the second accused aided and abetted the first accused in an assault on the deceased. He said that the evidence is speculative and too weak to be allowed to go to the assessors.

State counsel submits that there was evidence on the basis of which the assessors could infer either that the second accused shared a common intention with the first accused to assault the deceased and his friends or that the second accused aided and abetted the first accused to assault the deceased with a knife. State counsel submits that the second accused’s knowledge that the first accused had a knife outside the Purple Haze Nightclub, and indeed had given him the knife in the car, provided enough evidence to allow the assessors to draw the necessary inferences.

The evidence of the second accused’s interview with the police certainly provides evidence that the second accused brought the first accused back to the nightclub, knowing that there had earlier been an argument with Roshni, who was with the deceased, and that the second accused gave the first accused the knife.

There is no direct evidence of what the second accused thought the first accused would do with the knife but there is evidence from eye-witnesses, that the second accused later joined the first accused in assaulting the deceased. It is not known whether the deceased had already been stabbed when the 2nd accused joined the fight.

What inferences can be drawn from this evidence, whether this was an attack on Mario or a fight in self-defence, and what the second accused foresaw when he gave the knife to the first accused, is a matter within the province of the assessors. Suffice it to say that in law, where the secondary offender is proven beyond reasonable doubt to have contemplated the possibility of violence, he is guilty of the principal offence if he took part in an unlawful joint enterprise (Chan Wing-siu and Others -v- The Queen [1984] UKPC 27; (1984) 3 ALL ER 877). Whether the second accused accompanied the first accused to the Nightclub to do something unlawful, or whether it was simply to see Roshni, is a matter for the assessors. Similarly whether both accused acted in concert in the assault, or whether the second accused aided and abetted the first accused in an assault on the deceased is a matter for the assessors.

I find therefore that pursuant to section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is evidence on the basis of which the second accused has a case to answer. I rule accordingly.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
3rd October 2001