State v Chand [2008] FJHC 72; HAC098.2006 (28 April 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No.: HAC 098 of 2006

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

SATISH CHAND

Counsel: Ms. J. Cokanasiga for the State
Mr. S. Sharma for the Accused

Date of Hearing & Sentence: Monday 28th April, 2008

SENTENCE

[1] Satish Chand you were charged with the murder of your de facto wife Pratima Devi. After a trial, you were convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter. The assessors were unanimous that you were not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The verdict of manslaughter was available on evidence. I accepted the assessors’ opinion and convicted you of manslaughter.

[2] On 11th September 2006 you assaulted Pratima in your home and she fell on the cement. You did not dispute the assault at the trial. In your caution interview you said that Pratima was mistreating your mentally handicapped daughter.

[3] On 12th September 2006 Pratima was medically examined by a doctor at the Sigatoka hospital. The doctor found multiple hematomas on Pratima’s body. However, the doctor’s diagnosis was that the injuries were not serious and therefore he did not conduct further internal examination.

[4] After the medical examination, Pratima went on to live at her brother’s house at Legalega, Nadi. Her brother’s wife noticed bruises on Pratima’s body and that she was bleeding from the nose and ears.

[5] After staying at her brother’s house for a week, she left the house. It is not apparent where Pratima went to. On 19th September 2006, Pratima was seen spitting out blood and was holding her left rib at the Vatudradra Police Post. The following day Pratima with the assistance of the police obtained her belongings from her house. These facts indicate that Pratima no longer trusted you for her safety.

[6] On 26th September 2006, Pratima was brought to the Sigatoka hospital in a state of coma. She died later on the same evening.

[7] The autopsy report revealed bruises, multiple rib fractures, and hematomas (blood clots) on Pratima’s scalp. Pratima died of rib fractures and hamorrhage in the brain.

[8] Your counsel submitted written mitigation on your behalf. You are 42 years old. You have a 13 year old mentally handicapped daughter from your previous marriage. Your first wife died in 2002. Your daughter is your only child and is depended on you. Currently, you are residing at your sister’s home. You work as a cane cutter and casual farm labourer for your brother in law. According to the social welfare report of your daughter your family is not willing to take responsibility of your daughter in your absence. You have attained class 4 education. You are a first time offender.

[9] Your relationship with the deceased is an aggravating factor. I accept that there is no evidence of history of domestic violence and that no weapon was used. I also accept the frustration and hardship that comes with rural farming living. Income derived from cane cutting is very low. Access to urban resources is restricted due to poor infrastructure. Life is not easy. But I cannot ignore the fact that a life has been lost through your conduct. What could be more serious offence than an offence that results in the loss of a human life?

[10] Society cannot excuse or condone any form of abuse or violence in domestic relationships. Women in rural communities are particularly vulnerable due to limited access to resources. They are less sophisticated compared to women in urban centers. They turn to accept a culture of silence over abusive relationships. The courts must take these realities into account.

[11] Domestic relationships are built on trusts between the partners. The essence of having domestic relationships is companionship and to share your life with your partner. Society expects the partners to maintain the integrity of domestic relationships. There is no place for abuse or any form of violence in domestic relationships.

[12] The tariff for manslaughter is between 12 years and a suspended term of imprisonment. Sentences in the lower range are usually reserved for cases of severe provocation and negligible violence.

[13] I would not categorize this case as a case of extreme violence calling for a sentence on the higher side of the tariff. You took the deceased to the hospital before she died reflects remorse on your behalf. In your police statements you were remorseful of your conduct. You agreed to many facts during the trial thereby shortening the length of the trial.

[14] After taking into account your previous good character, your particular family circumstances, your co-operation with the police and court, and your remorse as the mitigating factors, and the fact that the deceased was your partner as the aggravating factor, I sentence you to 3 years imprisonment. In law a term of 3 years imprisonment cannot be suspended.

[15] Satish Chand your sentence is 3 years imprisonment.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Lautoka
Monday 28th April, 2008

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Lautoka for the State
Legal Aid Commission, Lautoka for the Accused