State v Sani [2004] FJHC 66; HAC0013Y.2003S (3 March 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0013 OF 2003

STATE

v.

SURESH SANI; and
DEO RAJ

Mr. Wilisoni Kuruisaqila for State
Ms J. Nair for 1st Accused
Mr. R. Chand for 2nd Accused

Hearing: 2nd March 2004
Ruling: 3rd March 2004

RULING

The prosecution wishes to ask the doctor to give his opinion on one of the injuries found on the deceased and the possible cause of it. The defence object because they are taken by surprise. They say that the prosecution case never included an assault by 1st accused on deceased and that they are prejudiced by this new evidence.

I agree. The allegation of assault on the deceased was never part of the prosecution case and this doctor is not the pathologist. To now allow him to express an opinion about the cause of injuries recorded in the post-mortem would be to open the case to secondary theories which have potentially prejudicial effects and very little probative value.

I will allow the doctor to explain what a contusion is generally and how they are caused but will not permit him to give evidence of the possible causes of the bruise shown in Photograph 10.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
3rd March 2004