State v Singh [2011] FJHC 20; HAC164.2010 (27 January 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 164 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

ROHIT ABHIKESH RAJ SINGH

Counsels : Mr. S. Vodokisolomone for State
Accused in Person

Date of Sentence : 27th January 2011

SENTENCE

[1] The Director of Public Prosecution had preferred the following charges against the
Accused Rohit Abhikesh Raj Singh.

"ROHIT ABHIKESH RAJ SINGH is charged with the following offences:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

GRIEVOUS HARM: Contrary to section 258 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

ROHIT ABHIKESH RAJ SINGH on the 20th day of August, 2010 at Samabula in the Central Division, unlawfully and maliciously did grievous harm to Rangeeta Lal

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

DISORDERLY CONDUCT AT A POLICE STATION: Contrary to Section 47of the Police Act Cap 85.

Particulars of Offence.

ROHIT ABHIKESH RAJ SINGH on the 20th day of August, 2010 at Samabula in the Central Division behaved in a disorderly manner at the charge room of Samabula Police Station."

[2] The facts of the case as submitted by the State is as follows:

"The victim Rangeeta Lal d/o Jag Lal was living in a de-facto relationship with the offender Rohit Abhikesh Raj Singh f/n Deo Raj at Lot 7 Sese Road Samabula. On the 20th day of August 2010 at about 2.00am in the morning the offender was trying to wake up the victim who was sleeping at the house. All of a sudden the offender forcefully pulled down the three quarter [ ¾ ] pants of the victim when the victim pushed the offender away. The offender than punched the stomach and chest of the victim and also grabbed a pair of scissors and stabbed her left leg below her knees. The victim shouted out in pain as it was painful as she saw blood splashing out. The victim than went to the washroom to try and clean the wound from her leg and whilst doing that the offender again hit her left cheek on her jaw with his black safety boot.

The matter was reported to police. An investigation was conducted. The victim was taken to the hospital for medical examination. Medical report confirmed injuries onto the leg and the jaws of the victim including his left arm.

The accused was interviewed under caution and charges were laid against him for Grievous Harm. Whilst at the Police Station Samabula the offender has also behaved in a disorderly manner. The accused was than formally charged for one count of Grievous harm pursuant to section 258 of the Crimes Decree 2009 and one count of Disorderly behavior at the Police Station pursuant to section 57 of the Police Act Cap 85."

[3] The accused pleaded guilty to both counts on 03.11.2010. Since he was following anger Management Course, sentencing is postponed to receive the progress report from the programme.

[4] The accused has followed and successfully completed a counseling and anger management programme conducted by Mr. Elder John Singh of Pacific Youth Correctional Ministries – Fiji. Mr. John Elder Singh has submitted to Court that the accused had completed the programme and he could see an improvement on the accused.

[5] Considering all factors, the Court finds plea of guilty of the accused to be unequivocal, therefore he was convicted as charged in the information.

[6] Rohit Abhikesh Raj Singh you have pleaded guilty and convicted under section 258 of the Crimes Decree for causing grievous harm to Rangeeta Lal and under section 47 of the Police Act for behaving in a disorderly manner at the charge room of Samabula Police Station.

[7] You have agreed to the facts submitted by the State and accepted 5 previous convictions. Two of them were against your de facto wife, i.e. the present victim, on similar nature.

[8] As per section 251 of the Crimes Decree 2009 the maximum penalty is an imprisonment up to 15 years.

[9] Now I consider the tariff to the offence. In State vs Annamallay (2005) FJHC 100 Madam Justice N. Shameem considered State v Dinesh Chand AAU0027 of 2000S, R v Shaukat Ali (1967) FLR 87 and State v Viliame Cavubati HAA0080 of 2001S and concluded the tariff is between a suspended term to 2 ½ years imprisonment.

[10] Considering all above cases I commence your sentence at 12 months imprisonment.

[11] Now I consider the aggravating factors.

(a) You have used a pair of scissors to cause the injury.
(b) The injury was caused at 2am while she was sleeping.
(c) You assaulted a helpless woman.

Considering the aggravating factors I increase 3 months. Now your sentence is 15 months.

[12] Now I consider the mitigating factors.

(a) You have pleaded guilty at very early stage of the trial.
(b) You are remorseful.
(c) You have followed and successfully completed an anger management programme.
(d) You promise you will not commit this sort of offence again.
(e) The period you spent in remand, pending trial.

Considering all mitigating circumstances I reduce 7 months from your sentence. Now your sentence is 8 months.

[13] Section 47 of the Police Act spells out a maximum sentence of 3 months for this
offence. Considering the circumstances I impose one month imprisonment and order the sentence to run concurrent with your 8 months imprisonment.

[14] Considering the nature of the offence, the request by the victim and the suggestion
by your Counseling officer acting under Section 26 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree I suspend your sentence of 8 months to a period of 3 years.

[15] You are explained the consequences of the suspended terms. If you commit any
Offence within the operational period you will have to serve this 8 months imprisonment, in addition to the punishment to that offence

[16] You are sentenced to 8 months and the same is suspended for 3 years.

S Thurairaja
Judge

At Suva
Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Accused in Person