IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 04 of 2015

STATE

V

BESUN DEO
1st Accused
SHAREEN WATI RAJ
2ND Accused

Counsels:	Mr. L. Fotofili for the State
		Mr. R. Vananalagi for the 1st accused
		Mr. A. Paka (L.A.C.) for the 2nd accused

Date of Conviction	: 	2 September 2016
Date of Sentence		:	6 September 2016

SENTENCE

[1]	The two accused have been convicted after trial in this court of one 	count of the murder of Parma Nand on the 13 January 2015 at 	Labasa.

[2]	The deceased was the estranged husband of the second accused 	who after leaving her husband entered into a relationship with the 	first accused.  Divorce proceedings between the deceased and the 	second accused were being contested over matrimonial property 	and custody of the one child and the protracted nature of these 	proceedings appeared to severely irk the first accused, the wife’s 	new de facto partner and between them they resolved to “settle” the 	matter once and for all. The deceased was seen to have been 	arguing with the couple in a bus on the 13th January 2015 and the 	deceased feared for his safety by telling a neighbour that “they will 	kill me and throw me”. 

[3]	In the early evening of the 15th the two accused took a bus to 	Tabicola Tiri on the outskirts of Labasa where the deceased lived. 	The ex-wife called the deceased and asked him to come and meet 	her because she had brought their son to see him. The deceased 	did go to meet her but took a friend with him. When they 	encountered the ex-wife she was with the first accused but no son. 	They met on the road in a desolate farm area.  A dispute quickly 	arose about the matrimonial property and the first accused started 	attacking the deceased. He was punched by the first accused and 	hit with a stone by the second accused. The deceased fell to the 	ground and on the instructions of the wife the first accused 	attempted to strangle him. This was all observed by the deceased’s 	friend. When the victim was semi-conscious or unconscious they 	both picked his body up and took it a few metres off the road and 	threw him face down into a swamp filled with water.

[4]	The pathologist has opined that he died of asphyxiation by 	drowning. 

[5]	Section 237 of the Crimes Decree in setting a penalty for murder 	makes it mandatory for the Court to impose a sentence of 	imprisonment for life, but the court is left with the discretion to set 	a minimum term to be served before pardon may be considered. 

[6]	In considering the gravity of this case and its seriousness, I 	determine that it is an appropriate case in which to set a minimum 	term on both accused before they can apply for pardon. 

[7]	As this Court said in CHAND HAC 45 of 2013 (Lbs) at par12;

	“[12] A minimum term is set obviously so that the community can be assured that persons taking the lives of others may serve a meaningful period in custody. The more serious the murder, the longer the minimum term; a murder with intention to kill will also attract a longer term than a murder committed by recklessness. Minimums of at least 20 years have been set in recent years and somewhat more for crimes of particular violence. This Court set a minimum term of 20 years in Bimal Prakash Dayal (HAC 364 of 2011) for a violent attack on three defenceless females where there had been no provocation and after mitigation had been taken into account. State Counsel refers me to the case of Seremaia Momo (HAC 86 of 2011) in which Temo J. passed a minimum term of 24 years for a very violent double  murder  when the accused had pleaded guilty.”

[8]	The Court of Appeal has said in Balekivuya and Tukana AAU 81 	of 2011 (28 Feb 2016) that a Court should give reasons for a 	minimum term if deciding to impose one and that there is no need 	to consider the time spent in custody prior to trial. Such discounts 	may come at the time that the Mercy Commission is assessing the 	eligibility for pardon. 

[9]	The facts brought forth in this trial show a ruthless, cynical and 	determined agreement to do away with the second accused’s 	former husband who was perceived to be an impediment to their 	happiness. They set out on this day in pursuance of a 	premeditated plan using deceit to lure him to a totally deserted 	place and set upon him. He was defenceless and unprovocative. By 	throwing him in a swamp when he had been incapacitated was not 	only reckless in the extreme but showed a clear intention to kill. It 	is a very serious murder indeed.

[10]	I pass on each of these accused the mandatory sentence of life 	imprisonment.

[11]	In consideration of the matters advanced in mitigation by their 	respective Counsel and in consideration of the appalling nature of 	this pre-meditated killing, I make an order that each should 	spend 	a minimum of 20 years in custody before parole be considered.

[12]	I have turned my mind to the evidence that suggests that the 	second accused wife was the instigator of this enterprise and that 	she egged on the first accused as he undertook the assault; but 	they acted jointly and were charged and tried jointly so they will 	suffer jointly. I make no difference in the exercise of my discretion. 	They will each suffer the loss of seeing their only child (one boy 	each) grow to maturity. 

						P. K. Madigan

						    Judge
At Labasa
6 September 2016