|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 195 OF 2013
STATE
-v-
ADITYA DEEDAR SAMI
Counsels : Mr. Josaia B. Niudamu for the State
The accused in person
Date of Sentence : 30 June 2014
(Names of the victims are suppressed they are referred to as NH and PN)
SENTENCE
Count 1
Statement of Offence
RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (a) and (3) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
Particulars of Offence
ADITYA DEEDAR SAMI on the 13th day of October 2013 at Nadi in the Western Division, penetrated the anus of NH, aged 9 years with his penis.
Count 2
Statement of Offence
SEXUAL ASSAULT: Contrary to Section 210 (1) (b) (i) and (2) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
Particulars of Offence
ADITYA DEEDAR SAMI on the 13th day of October 2013 at Nadi in the Western Division, procured NH to commit an act of gross indecency by sucking the penis of PETAIA NAVURA.
The complainant is one NH, 9 years and a class 4 student of Lautoka Muslim School. At the time of the offence, the complainant was residing with his grandmother at Koromakawa settlement, Vunayasi in Nadi.
On Sunday, 13th October 2013 at about 3pm, the accused, Aditya Deedar Sami (also known as "Roy"), 22 years of Koromakawa settlement in Nadi, invited the complainant and two other children (PW 2 and PW 3) to his place at Koromakawa settlement for lunch. Once they finished with their lunch, PW 2 and PW 3 went outside to wash their dishes.
The accused then called the complainant to his bedroom. The accused was lying on the bed and he was watching pornographic movie in his mobile phone. The accused then showed the pornographic movie to the complainant. While they were watching the pornographic movie, the accused was touching his penis then after a while he removed the complainant shirt, ¾ shorts and underwear. The accused took the complainants clothes and hidden it. The complainant was ashamed of coming out of the bedroom so he covered himself with the blanket whilst the accused went to have his shower.
The accused, after shower, went to his bedroom and was only wearing his underwear. The accused then again lay in bed and then covered himself with the same blanket which the complainant was using. The accused then again showed pornographic movie to the complainant. The accused then got up and removed his underwear. The complainant saw the accused penis and he started crying. The accused then pulled the complainant hand and grabbed his mouth. The complainant managed to hit the accused with his elbow and the accused got angry and slap the complainants head and buttocks.
The accused then made the complainant to bend down on the bed and then the accused penetrate the complainant's anus with his penis. The complainant was in pain and he started to scream. However, the accused blocked his mouth and informed him not to cry or he will hit the complainant.
PW 2 and PW 3 heard that the complainant was shouting and PW 2 went inside the room to see them. When PW2 entered the room, the accused pulled PW 2 and told him to remove his sulu and underpants and the accused forced the complainant to suck PW 2's penis.
The accused wore his clothes after having unlawful sexual intercourse with the complainant and informed the complainant that his clothes is underneath the sofa. The complainant then wore his clothes and he was threatened by the accused not to tell anyone.
The matter was later reported to the Police and the accused was interviewed under caution and he admitted that he had raped the complainant and also forced the complainant to suck PW 2's penis.
The accused is a first offender.
"We consider that at any rape case without aggravating or mitigating features the starting point for sentencing an adult should be a term of imprisonment of seven years. It must be recognized by the Courts that the crime of rape has become altogether too frequent and that the sentences imposed by the Courts for that crime must more nearly reflect the understandable public outrage. We must stress, however, that the particular circumstances of a case will mean that there are cases where the proper sentence may be substantially higher or substantially lower than that starting point."
"Rape of children is a very serious offence in deed and it seems to be very prevalent in Fiji at the time. The legislation had dictated harsh penalties and the Courts are imposing those penalties in order to reflect society's abhorrence for such crimes. Our nation's children must be protected and they must be allowed to develop to sexual maturity unmolested. Psychologists tell us that the effect of sexual abuse on children in their later development is profound."
In this case 42 year step father was sentenced for 13 years with non parole period of 10 years for digital rape of 14 year old step daughter.
"The accused's engagement in his unilateral sexual activity with a little girl who was insensitive to such activity is most abhorrent. This kind of immoral act on a little girl of MB's standing is bound to yield adverse results and psychological trauma, the effect of which is indeed difficult to foresee and asses even by psychologists and sociologists. The depravity of the accused in committing the offence should be denounced to save little children for their own future; and, the men of the accused's caliber should not be allowed to deny the children of their legitimate place in the community. In passing down the sentence in case of this nature, deterrence is therefore, of paramount importance."
Contact between the naked genitalia of the offender and naked genitalia face or mouth of the victim.
Category 2
(a) Contact between the naked genitalia of the offender and another part of the victim's body;
(b) Contact with the genitalia of the victim by the offender using part of his or her body other than genitalia, or an object;
(c) Contact between either the clothed genitalia of the offender and naked genitalia of the victim; or the naked genitalia of the offender with the clothed genitalia of the victim.
Category 3
Contact between part of the offender's body (other than the genitalia) with part of the
victim's body (other than genitalia).
(i) 1st count of Rape - | 9 years 3 months and 16 days. |
(ii) 2nd count of Sexual assault - | 6 years |
"The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is 'just and appropriate'. The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; "when... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behavior and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences."
Summary
Sudharshana De Silva
JUDGE
At Lautoka
30th June 2014
Solicitors : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Accused in Person
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2014/479.html
