State v Natuitagalua - Summing Up [2016] FJHC 937; HAC111.2012 (3 October 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL CASE: HAC 111 OF 2012

STATE

v

APISAI NATUITAGALUA
EPELI SAUKURU

Counsel : Mr A. Singh for State
Ms L. Tabuakuro for the First Accused
Mr T. Ravuniwa for the Second Accused

Date of Hearing : 30^th August 2016 to 31^st August 2016
1^st September 2016 to 5^th September 2016
15^th September 2016 to 23^rd September 2016
Date of Closing Submissions : 26^th September 2016
Date of Summing Up : 3^rd October 2016

SUMMING UP

1. Ladies and Gentleman assessors, you have heard the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence and also the respective closing submissions of the learned counsel for the prosecution and the defence. Now, it is my duty to sum up the case to you. As part of that, I will direct you on the law that applies in this action. You must accept the law from me and apply all directions I give you on matters of law.
2. Our functions in this trial have been and remain quite different. Throughout this trial the law has been my area of responsibility, and I must now give you directions as to the law which applies in this case. When I do so, you must accept those directions and follow them.
3. It is also my function to remind you of the prominent features of the evidence. However, it has always been your responsibility to judge the evidence and decide all the relevant facts of this case. You and you alone must decide what evidence you accept, what evidence you do not accept and what evidence you are not sure about; and when you come to consider your opinion, you and you alone, must do that.
4. You do not have to decide every point which has been raised; only such matters as will enable you to say whether the charge laid against the accused has been proved. You will do that by having regard to the whole of the evidence including the material tendered as exhibits and forming your own opinion about the witnesses, and which evidence is reliable and which is not. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of witnesses, both prosecution and defence and the material tendered as exhibits.
5. You all have been chosen from the community and represent a pool of common sense, knowledge and experience of the conduct of human beings in our community. You have sworn an oath or affirmed that you will deliver a true opinion according to the evidence. Therefore you must decide this case only on the evidence which has been placed before you. There will be no more.
6. You must reach your opinion on evidence. Evidence is what the witnesses both from the prosecution and the defence said from the witness box, documents and other materials received as exhibits and agreed fact. This summing up, statements, arguments, questions and comments made by the counsel of the parties are not evidence. The opening address of the learned counsel of the prosecution is not evidence. The purpose of the opening address by the learned counsel for the prosecution is to outline the nature of evidence intended to be put before you. The closing addresses of the counsel of the prosecution and the accused are not evidence either. They are their arguments, which you may properly take into account when you evaluate the evidence, but the extent to which you do so is entirely a matter for you.
7. If you heard, or read, or otherwise learned anything about this case outside of this courtroom, you must exclude that information or opinions from your consideration. You must have regard only to the testimonies and the exhibits put before you in this courtroom during the course of this trial. Ensure that no external influence plays a part in your deliberation.
8. As judges of facts you are allowed to talk, discuss and deliberate facts of this case only among yourselves. However, each one of you must reach your own conclusion or form your own opinion. You are required to give merely your opinion but not the reasons for your opinion. Your opinion need not be unanimous. I must advice you that I am not bound by your opinion, but I assure you that your opinion will assist me in reaching my judgment.
9. Moreover, I must caution you that you should dismiss all emotions of sympathy or prejudice, whether it is sympathy for or prejudice against the accused or anyone else. No such emotion has any part to play in your decision, nor should you allow public opinion to influence you. You must approach your duty dispassionately; deciding the facts solely upon the whole of the evidence. It is your duty as judges of facts to decide the legal culpability as set down by law and not the emotional or moral culpability of the action.

Burden and Standard of Proof.

10. I now draw your attention to the issue of burden and standard of proof. The accused persons are presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is in force until you form your own opinion that the accused person are guilty for the offence.
11. The burden of proof of the charges against the accused is on the prosecution. It is because the accused persons are presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty. Accordingly, the burden of proof rest on the prosecution throughout the trial and it never shifts to the accused. In other words there is no burden on the accused persons to prove their innocence, as their innocence are presumed by law.
12. The standard of proof in criminal trial is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. It means that you must be satisfied in your mind that you are sure of the accused’s guilt. If there is a riddle in your mind as to the guilt of the accused after deliberating facts based on the evidence presented, that means the prosecution has failed to satisfy you the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If you found any reasonable doubt as to the commission of the offence as charged or any other offence by the accused, such doubt should always be given in favour of the accused person.

Information

13. The first accused is being charged with two counts of Rape contrary to Section 207(1) and (2) (a) of the Crimes Decree and one count of Assault with Intent to Commit Rape contrary to Section 209 of the Crimes Decree. The second accused is being charged with one count of Rape contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (a) of the Crimes Decree and one count of Assault with Intent to Commit Rape contrary to Section 209 of the Crimes Decree. The particulars are before you, hence I do not wish to reproduce them in the summing up.
14. Accordingly main elements of the offence of rape as charged in the information are that;
    1. The Accused,
    2. Penetrated into the vagina of the victim with his penis,
    3. The victim did not consent to the accused to penetrate into her vagina with his penis,
    4. The Accused knew the complainant was not consenting for him to insert his penis in that manner.
15. The main elements of the offence of Assault with intent to commit rape are that;
    1. The accused,
    2. Assaulted the victim,
    3. With intend to commit rape,
16. Assault means any form of hostile or adverse act done towards the victim. If such hostile or adverse act was done on the victim with the intent to commit rape, then the accused has committed an offence of Assault with intent to commit rape.
17. The prosecution has charged the first accused with two counts of rape and one counts of assault with intent to commit rape. The second accused is separately charged for one count of rape and one count of Assault with Intent to Commit Rape. As judges of facts, you are required to consider each and every count separately. If you found the accused is guilty of one count that does not automatically make him guilty for the remaining counts. Likewise, if you found one accused is guilty for the offence that does not automatically make the other accused guilty for the offences that he has been charged with.
18. The prosecution alleges that Rosa, the victim went to meet her boyfriend at Navaka village in the morning of 25th August 2012. She then started to drink with the two accused and few others at the house of Joji. At the end of the drinking party, she came to the road and waited for her transport. Apisai, the first accused came and grabbed her hand and forced her to go with them. He then took her to the Navaka Super Market, where Epeli, the second accused and one Sitiveni went to buy more beer. At that time she knocked out and did not know what had happened to her. When she regained her conscious, she found that she was at a mango tree with the two accused and Sitiveni. The first accused then grabbed her to the nearby bush and punched her thighs and chest. He then forcefully inserted his penis into her vagina and had sexual intercourse. He then went back to the mango tree and continued drinking beer. In a while the second accused also dragged her to the same place and forcefully inserted his penis in her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. When they finished the drinking at the mango tree, the first accused grabbed her and took her to another place. She has no idea about the place. He then made her lie down and strangled her neck threatening her not to make sounds. He then forcefully inserted his penis in to her vagina and had sexual intercourse without her consent.
19. The two accused person denied the allegation. The first accused admitted that he had a sexual intercourse with the victim with her consent at a place known at Emuri, when they were walking back to his house after the drinking session at the mango tree. The second accused admitted also that he had consensual sexual intercourse with the victim near the mango tree while they were drinking beer. Both of them denied the allegation that they raped the victim.
20. Accordingly, there is no issue about the identity of the two accused persons and the issue of penetration in respect of the first and second count of rape respectively. Accordingly, the main issues are that;

1. Whether the first accused forcefully had a sexual intercourse with the victim when they were drinking beer under the mango tree at the Navaka River bank.
2. Whether the first and second accused person assaulted the victim with intent to commit rape.

21. Consent is a state of mind which can take many forms from willing enthusiasm to reluctant agreement. In respect of the offence of rape, the victim consents only, if she had the freedom and capacity to voluntarily make a choice and express that choice freely. A consent obtained through fear, by threat, by exercise of authority, by use of force or by intimidation could not be considered as a consent given freely and voluntarily. A submission without physical resistance by the victim to an act of another person shall not alone constitute consent.
22. The victim must have the freedom to make the choice. It means that she must not being pressured or forced to make that choice. Moreover, the victim must have a mental and physical capacity to make that choice freely. The consent perhaps may be limited to some sort of sexual or intimate activities but not for another form of sexual activity. The consent can be withdrawn at any time. The consent is an ongoing state of mind and is not irrevocable once given. The consent of a person for sexual intercourse should not be assumed.
23. According to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is no dispute about the capacity of the victim to make a decision of consent. I say so, because you have heard the evidence that the victim had been drinking since the night of 24th of August 2012, until this alleged incident took place in the evening of 25th of August 2012. The prosecution did not provide any evidence to suggest that she was incapacitated to make any choice due to intoxication. There is no evidence that she did not exercise no choice whether to agree or not due to intoxication. The evidence of the victim clearly indicated that she knew what was happing to her and she tried to push the two accused away when they committed these offences on her.
24. The two accused persons in their respective defence said that the victim was the one who invited them to engage in sex with her. She willingly participated in those two separate sexual intercourse with the two accused persons. Hence, the issue of mistaken belief of consent is not an issue in this matter.
25. You must bear in mind that offences of sexual nature do not need the evidence of collaboration. It means that if you are satisfied with the evidence given by the victim and accepts it as reliable and truthful, you are not required to look for any other evidence to support the account given by the victim.
26. One or more of you may have assumptions as to what constitutes rape, what kind of person may be the victim of rape, what kind of person may be the rapist or what a person who is being or has been raped will do or say. Though such assumptions are natural in ordinary life, it is important that you must leave behind such assumptions as there is no stereotype of circumstances for a rape, a rapist or a victim of rape.
27. You may recall that the defence extensively cross examined the victim and also provided evidence through the witnesses of the defence about the cloths that the victim was dressed in on that particular day. Moreover, the defence adduced evidence to suggest that she was not shy and certain occasions she went and kissed the two accused persons during the drinking party. However, I must caution you that the cloths of a woman or her social interaction with male, are not necessarily an indication that she was consenting to engage in sexual intercourse.
28. Offences of this nature can take place in any circumstance between any kinds of persons, who act in a variety of ways. You must approach the case dispassionately, putting aside any view as to what you might or might not have expected to hear, and make your judgment strictly on the evidence that you have heard from the witnesses and the exhibits during the course of the hearing.
29. It is your duty as judges of facts to assess the evidence in order to determine whether the victim gave her consent to the accused for this alleged sexual intercourse. In doing that, you must be mindful that not to bring in to the assessment of the evidence any preconceived views as to how a victim of rape in a trial such as this should react to the experience that the victim had gone through. Every person has his or her own way of coping with such incident. Some may display obvious signs of distress and others may not. Demeanor of the victim in the court while giving evidence is not necessarily a clue to the truth of the victim’s account.
30. Let me now remind you the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence during the course of the hearing.

Evidence of the Prosecution

31. The first witness of the prosecution is Rosalia Tinanisokula. She is the victim of this case. She was seventeen years old and was residing in Lautoka with her family in 2012.
32. On the 24th of August 2012, at around 10 p.m. she went to hospital with her sister Mareia Keli as her boyfriend had a swollen hand. On their way back to home, she received a call from one of her friends Neli who resides at Legalega, inviting her to come and drink with them. She then went to Nadi with her sister. She met Neli and then went to a house of one Indian girl at Nasoso. They drank beer till around 3 a.m. They were joined by two other Indian boys. Rosa’s sister went back to home and she went to Neli’s house and slept there. She was drunk when she went to sleep.
33. On the following morning, at about 6 a.m., Neil dropped her to the main road, where she boarded in to a minivan and travelled to Lautoka. She received a call from her boyfriend Ratu when she reached Lautoka. He asked her to come and meet him in Nadi. She then took a minivan and went back to Nadi. When she reached Nadi, Ratu asked her come to Navaka. She then boarded to a carrier and went to Navaka. It was the first time she went to Navaka. Ratu received her at Navaka junction and took her to uncle Joji’s house. She was dressed in a blue shorts, white vest and a cardigan on that day.
34. Ratu and uncle Joji were drinking rum at their house and Rosa joined with them. In a while, about fifteen minutes later, an old man, his wife and two Fijian men came and joined the drinking party. They brought a carton of beer with them. She has never met or seen these people before. They were sitting on the floor and she was seated next to Ratu. The two Fijian men were sitting next to her and the old man was sitting next to Ratu’s uncle. It was a sunny day. They all drank the bottle of rum. She could not understand what they were talking as they conversed in Navaka dialects.
35. In a while Ratu left to town to drop one of his friends. He asked her to wait until he come back. When Ratu did not return as he said, she asked the old man for his mobile phone. She then called on her mobile phone, which Ratu took with him. However, he did not answer to her call. While they were drinking, the old man and his wife started to fight. She does not know the reason for their fight. The old man slapped his wife and swore at her. At that time the wife of Ratu’s uncle came.
36. The drinks finished at around 3p.m. They all then came outside of the house and went to the roadside. Rosa was waiting for a vehicle to go back. The old man came and grabbed her by her left hand and forced her to go with him. She was really drunk at that time. Ratu’s uncle was at home and she does not know where the wife of the old man was. She tried to stop him and pushed his hand. But he grabbed and forced her to go. They went to a nearby shop. One of the two Fijian men went and bought some more beer. She was sitting on top of a block near the shop and the old man was standing beside her. At that time she knocked out and did not know what happened thereafter.
37. Rosa found herself under a rain tree when she regained conscious. She saw the old man and other two Fijian men were drinking under the tree. It was close to a river and surrounded with a cassava patch and barbed wire. The old man slapped on her face to wake her up. He then pulled her up and dragged her to the nearby bush. He grabbed her by her vest and pulled up to stand up. She fell and the barbed wire hit her stomach. However, he continued to drag her. Other two Fijian men were just drinking at that time. He dragged her about fifty meters. She got scratches and bruises on her thighs. Those injuries caused by barbed wire when she fell. The old man then made her laid down on the grass and slapped and told her to keep quite. He pressed her thighs so hard and punched on her chest. He told her to keep still. Rosa said that she struggled and tried to push him away. She was weak and helpless.
38. The old man then removed all of her cloths and knelt down beside her. He lifted her both legs up and kissed her necked and made love bites. He then fondled her breast. He forcefully inserted his penis into her vagina and forcefully pushed it in and out. Rosa said it was really painful. He did it for about five minutes. He then put on his cloths and went back to the place where other two men were drinking. She put her cloths on and stayed at the same place and cried. One of the Fijian men came and helped her. He took her back to where they were drinking. She seated next to that man. The old man talked to the other man who did not come to help her in Navaka dialects.
39. The other Fijian man, who did not help her, then came straight to her and started to pull the top of her vest and hair. He dragged her to the same place where the old man dragged her before. He made her laid down and pulled the top collar of her vest and started to fondle her breast with his mouth. The man who helped her told this Fijian man to stop this but this man and the old man started swearing at him. She was weak and helpless. Rosa said that she couldn't defend herself. He then took off her cloth and lifted her legs up. He inserted his penis into her vagina and it was really painful. Rosa said that she did not consent to him to do this. He did it for about five minutes. He then told her to put her cloths on and helped her to stand up. He then took her to the place where other two were drinking. When she was taken to that place, she begged the man who helped her to take her to the main road. But he was scared of the other two men.
40. After they finished drinking, the old man told that he was going to drop her to the main road. It was getting dark at that time. He actually took her somewhere, instead of taking her to the main road. She couldn't see and did not know how far it was from the place they consumed liquor. Rosa said that she was sitting next to the old man when the drinks finished. He then grabbed her by her hand and pulled her to where he was going.
41. He stopped at a place, where she could not recognised and spread a blue colour sulu under a three, which she could not clearly recall whether it was a lemon tree or cassava patch. He then made her to lay down. She cried and tried to stop him. He then strangled her neck and told her to keep quite. He then removed all her cloths and knelt beside her. He then inserted his penis into her vagina. He did it for ten minutes. He then lay down beside her and knocked out. Rosa then managed to find her white vest and sulu. She couldn't find her other cloths. She did not know where was she exactly going. She came across a house and saw two young Fijian girls and one young Fijian boy were walking at the side of the road. She was still intoxicated. She asked help from those young people for her to stop a carrier and go. She found a carrier and came to Nadi town.
42. When she came to Nadi, she saw a boy. He was Roko who was her neighbor. She went after him and met him near the ANZ bank. Rosa told him that she was raped and asked him to take her to the hospital. She was weak, injured and bleeding from her stomach. Roko took her to hospital when she reached the hospital, she fainted. When she woke up again, she found that she was given drips on her hand. . She was admitted at the hospital for three days. This matter was reported to the police on Sunday.
43. The Fijian man who raped her came to her home and met her mother. He apologised for what had happened. He spoke to her mother and she saw and identified him. She in her evidence then explained the build and physical features of the old man and other person who raped her.
44. You may recall that she was extensively cross examined by the learned counsel for the first and second accused respectively. I now summarized the evidence adduced during the cross examination of the victim.
45. Rosa said that she started to drinking alcohol when she was fifteen years old. That was the time her parents got separated. She goes to drinking party with her friends, but does not go with strangers. Her boyfriend Ratu previously had a relationship with her sister Maraia Kelli. Her sister has a child with him. Rosa used to go and meet Ratu to get formula milk for her sister’s child. At the time of this alleged incident took place, she had been dating with him for a week. Rosa’s mother didn’t know about her relationship with Ratu. Her sister was initially upset about her relationship with Ratu, but later she had no issues with it.
46. Neli, the friend with whom she drank in the night of 24th of August 2012, is a part Indian male. He lives in Legalega with his parents. His parents did not know that she spent the night of 24th of August 2012 at their place. She told Ratu that she was drinking with a friend of her in Nadi.
47. Rosa did not go home when she came back to Lautoka on the following morning. Instead of going back home, she went back to Nadi when Ratu called her. She was dressed in the same cloths that she wore in the previous night. She did not inform her parents that she was going back to Nadi to meet Ratu. Rosa knew that her dress was not appropriate to go to a Fijian village. Rosa stated that she did not enjoy the drinking party at Ratu’s uncle’s place and told Ratu to take her back. However, Ratu told her that when the drink finish he will take her back. She has not mentioned this conversation in the statement that she made to the police.
48. You may recall that she explained the surrounding and inside settings of the Ratu’s uncle’s house in her cross examination. Ratu introduced her to his uncle as his girlfriend. His wife was not at home at that time. Ratu left the drinking party about fifteen minutes after arrival of the old man and the gang. Rosa stated that the old man is the first accused Apisai and the one of the two Fijian men is the second accused Epeli. Rosa did not know the mobile phone number of Ratu by heart and that was the reason she called on her mobile phone from the phone of Apisai.
49. When Rosa was asked whether Apisai gave her bus fare, she said that she cannot recall it. She recalls that Apisai and his wife had a fight, but did not know the reason for it. Rosa said that she did not kiss Apisai and it was not the reason for their fight. Rosa went to visit the toilet few times, while she was in the drinking party. She cannot recall whether she was seated next to Apisai after he gave her six dollars.
50. Rosa identified the house of Ratu’s uncle when she was shown a photo of it. She said that it was not difficult to find the main road from the house. It was a sunny day and vehicles were moving along the road.
51. The drinks finished at 3 p.m and two Fijian men stood up and walked out. Apisai did not follow them. Rosa said that she did not follow the three men to the super market. While she was waiting outside at the road, Apisai came and grabbed her hand and forced her to go with them. She was forced by Apisai up to the super market. She was really drunk at that time. She did not know how she got to the mango three from the super market. She cannot recall whether she consumed beer at the mango three.
52. When Apisai had forcefully sexual intercourse with her near the mango three, she pushed him away, but did not scratch, punch or kick him. Both of the occasions he has forcefully entered his penis into her vagina and she felt pain.
53. Rosa recalls a female police officer visited her at the hospital. Apisai did not slap her hard. He punched her twice on her chest. She came to the hospital within three hours of this incident. Rosa could recall a doctor examining her and the report was made within three hours of the incident. She identified her medical report made at the hospital.
54. When she was asked about the history of the incident written down by WPC Grace in her medical report, Rosa said that it was not her statement. Rosa cannot remember saying that. WPC Grace made a mistake reporting that. She said that she was not raped at Legalega.
55. Rosa said that she never made a statement to the doctor as it has been recorded by the doctor under D9 of the medical report. She made her statement to the police on the next day. Rosa stated that she consented to have the medical examination and her mother was also present at that time. She said that she was raped three times within an hour by the two accused. She did not consent to have those three sexual encounters.
56. Rosa said that the vest that she was dressed in was very short and if she lifted her hands up, her umbilical code area could be exposed. When she was shown the photos of the area of this incident took place, she said that place has changed, specially the landscape and the vegetation’s of the place. There were barbed wires and some were erected to the fence and some were lying on the ground. She did not see any house nearby.
57. Rosa said that she did not kiss Apisai in front of Epeli and other person under the mango tree. She cannot remember whether there were houses along the feeder road from the junction to the mango tree. She said the second incident of sexual intercourse with Apisai was not consensual. She did not touch his front side of the trousers and try to arouse him. Rosa said that she did not ask him to perform oral sex on her and vice versa. She did not consent or participate in these sexual intercourses.
58. Rosa stated that she did not see the penis of Apisai and only felt it. She was not aware of any foreign object inserted in his penis. Only she knew that it was very painful to her. She said the injuries she sustained were not self-inflicted.
59. When she saw Roko, she wanted to go and ask him for help. That was the reason she did not go to police. Rosa stated that she was not confused and could clearly remember that two men raped her. This allegation is not an assumption she made.
60. Subsequent to the cross examination of the learned counsel for the first accused, the learned counsel for the second accused proceeded to cross examine the victim. I will now summarised the evidence adduced during the cross examination of the victim by the learned counsel for the second accused.
61. Rosa was questioned about her Face Book account. She said that the name and her education background that has been posted on her Face Book account, are made up information. Rosa further said that she only conversed with Ratu during the drinking party. She cannot remember whether she spoke with Epeli. Epeli did not call her as Rosi and she cannot remember Epeli was telling her “uro”. Rosa stated that she did not kiss Epeli at the passage goes towards the toilet at Ratu’s uncle’s house. She further denied Leba saw it as she never kissed Epeli.
62. Epeli and other Fijian man stood up and went out when the drinks finished. She was the first one left the house. While she was waiting at the road side, Apisai came and forced her to go with them.
63. Rosa said that she did not stand up and called Epeli at the mango tree. She denied that she kissed Epeli under the mango tree. Rosa stated that she did not go to nearby bush with Epeli and had consensual sexual intercourse with him. Epeli did not performed oral sex on her, neither she did so. She did not come on top of Epeli when they had sexual intercourse. Subsequent to the sexual intercourse, he asked her to put her cloths on and then took her back to the place where there were drinking. She cried and asked Sitiveni to help her. She cannot remember whether she got her bus fare. In a ten minutes time, drink finished and Apisai took her with him. She did not know where Epeli and Sitiveni went from there.
64. In respect of the Medical Report, Rosa stated that the police came to see her on the same night. However, they recorded her statement on following morning. She cannot remember the doctor came and examined her. Rosa said that she gave the history to the doctor as it has been recorded in the Medical Report. She said that she was heavily drunk and gave a wrong statement to the Doctor. Rosa said that she was not confused with the event took place. She was only drunk and that was the reason she made a wrong statement.
65. During the re-examination, Rosa said that she was not aware that she was going to Navaka village when Ratu called her. He called and asked her to come to Nadi. She was drunk in the night of 24th and that was the reason she stayed at Neli’s house.
66. The second witness of the prosecution is Doctor Anareta. She was graduated from Fiji School of Medicine with MBBS degree in 2006. She has served at the Nadi Hospital during the period between 2008 and 2013. She is a general practitioner. During her career, she has examined quite a lot of victims of sexual offences.
67. Dr. Anareta explained the procedure of examination of victim of the sexual offences. Doctor said that they do not conduct medical examination if a victim walked into the hospital and claimed that she was rape. They first informed the Police and depending on the condition of the victim they either send the victim to the police or call the police to come to the hospital. Once the police issued a medical examination form, the hospital proceeds to conduct the medical examination of the victim.
68. Dr. Anareta stated that she conducted the medical examination of the victim of this case. Normally the first page of the report is filled by the police. She could not recall whether a victim was accompanied by a police officer. The consent of the victim is important. It is her duty to inform the victim about the purpose of the report and needs the consent of the victim to take blood or being admitted to the hospital. If another person has signed for the consent other than the victim, it means that the victim is a minor. If the victim is injured and could not give the consent, the hospital first treat for the injuries and documented them. Once the victim is stable, awake, and oriented, they proceed with completing the medical report.
69. Dr. Anareta could not recall whether the victim was first treated and then report was made or other way around. If the victim is intoxicated and could not speak and incoherent, they do not normally take the history from the victim. She could not recall weather the history given by the victim was recorded before or after the examination. Doctor could not actually say that whether the victim herself gave the history of the incident. However, Doctor said that under heading D12(b), it has been recorded that the patient complaining of pain and that is an indication that the victim may have given the history to the doctor.
70. The victim was dressed in a torn top and a sulu that was covered with dirt. She had no undergarment and smelt of alcohol. She could not recall whether the victim loose her conscious or black out during the examination. Her level of intoxication has not been documented in the medical report.
71. You may recall that Dr, Anareta explained the specific medical findings she found during the medical examination. They have been recorded under D12 of the medical report. She then explained the body diagram that she recorded in appendix 1. The victim had multiples laceration and they could have been caused by blunt trauma. She has also founded hematoma and tenderness around the same place where she found those multiple lacerations.
72. The Doctor has found multiple abrasions at the both sides of the inner thighs as well as at the front interior of her thighs. Abrasion could be caused by gazing of the skin against a rough surface or a fall against a rough surface. She said that dragging could cause multiple abrasions. Doctor said that abrasion could not be caused by hard pressing on the thighs. The pain of the joints and headache that the victim complained about could be a manifestation of those injuries that she had sustained. If there was no force in slapping, that would not make any injuries on the skin. She has done a neck examination, where she found bruises at the left lateral aspect of the neck. This could be caused by any blunt trauma. If there is strangling, then there would be bruising on both side of the neck. If the strangling was done with limited force, then it would be difficult to ascertain as any marking of bruising would be depend on the force that was applied on the victim.
73. Dr. Anareta has not conducted any chest examination. During the vaginal examination, she had found old blood around the perineum area. According to the specific medical findings as it was record in the medical report, there were no active bleedings, no laceration, no tears were found during the vaginal examination. Perineum is the opening of the vagina to the anus. She then explained the possible causes for the old blood that she found around perineum area. There are two possible causes. The first is that due to micro injuries. They are not visible to naked eye and can be caused by force or aggressive penetration via a blunt object or forceful penetration that was not severe enough to cause visible injuries. Two kinds of test can be done to visualise these micro injuries, but they are not available in Fiji. The second reason could be that the victim was closing towards her menses. The colour of the blood was brownish red. The colour of the blood could not be able to determine whether the blood found around perineum was due to micro injuries or due to the menses as blood changes colour as time progress due to the loss of oxygen in the blood.
74. Dr, Anareta has conducted a speculum examination through the opening part of the vagina to the cervix and found some old blood around vaginal canal. No tearing was found. The old blood that she found could be due to either micro injuries or some blood expelled from uterus into the vagina during the menses. She explained that the offence of rape has been commonly misunderstood as if there were no visible vaginal injuries, then there is no rape. Rape is not giving consent and victims were not able to give consent for few reasons, such as unconscious, sleeping, too frighten to resist or too drunk etc.
75. Tearing of the vagina depends on how forceful or violent the penetration was. If there is no visible injuries, then must look for other visible injuries of the victim to determine if there is some force or trauma or violent. Dr Anareta in her professional opinion stated that, considering the injuries documented in the medical report, it would suggest that the victim had been dragged on the ground. Every victim of rape does not have visible vaginal injuries. There could be micro vaginal injuries as well. Sometime even consensual sexual intercourse would cause vaginal injuries. It depends on the force and aggressiveness of the penetration. If the victim struggled or fought to get away, then there could be more forceful penetration to the vagina resulting injuries. If no resistance, and less force, then it could only result in micro vaginal injuries.
76. Dr Anareta explained that the purpose of the insertion of foreign object to a penis is to increase pleasure and not to cause any tearing and pain. Such object would not cause laceration in its own as it supposed to increase pleasure. After the examination, the victim was admitted to the hospital, but she could not confirm how many days the victim was admitted to the hospital.
77. There are few main things to be satisfied about the victim before the conduct of medical examination. They are whether the victim is awake, alert, oriented and coherent. If those facts are not satisfied, still they can proceed with the examination, but the recording of the history has to be hold. The three main techniques use in vaginal examination are direct visualisation, staining or toluidine and colposcopy. She then explained that external vaginal examination covers the labia majora and labia minora. The internal examination is focused on fossa navicularis that is the vaginal volt between the cervix and upper part of the vagina. It also includes heymen, cervix and anal area.
78. Dr Anareta further explained that if the hymen is intact, the victim would not be sexually active. The determination of the status of hymen was one of the purposes of this examination. She said that usually she makes specific mention of the hymen in the medical report if it can be easily visualised to determine whether it is intact or not. She agreed that in this case, she has not mentioned anything about hymen in the medical report.
79. The vagina is able to elongate. When a woman is sexually aroused, the vagina elongates in order to receive the penis. However, it does not necessarily and automatically lubricate when a woman is sexually aroused. Vagina could not be elongated without being aroused She further explained that if the vagina is elongate but not lubricated, it could be a painful and dry penetration. However, such painful and dry penetration does not automatically cause visible tearing and it would depend on how well the vagina is elongated and accommodate the penis into it.
80. If such dry penetration occurs for about five minutes, it could lead to micro injuries or visible injuries in the vagina. She said that no tears or laceration found during the vaginal examination, but there could be micro injuries which she was not able to confirm.
81. In respect of the old blood she found, Dr Anareta stated that she did not ask the victim whether she just finished her menses circle. It is important to medically examine the victim of sexual assault within first 24 to 48 hours of the incident. The victim did not tell her what time she was raped. The time stated in the first page of the report as 8.30, was written down by the police. The actual time of the examination could be different from that time. She was not able to state the time that she conducted the medical examination. But she said that it was the same night of the alleged incident took place.
82. Dr. Anareta was asked by the learned counsel for the first accused that in general if a victim was raped multiple times, would it normally cause vaginal injuries. Dr Anareta answered that it still depends on the force and aggressiveness of the penetration and the level of resistance by the victim. More the victim resist the more the force of penetration needed, leading vaginal injuries.
83. Dr Anareta explained that if she is highly engaged in sexual activities, the possibility of causing injuries in vagina is minimum even without elongation. If the victim is very much active in sexual activities, the vaginal cavity could accommodate the penetration of a penis. It depends on how big the vaginal opening. The mussel of the opening of vagina is bit loser if a person is very much sexually active. Speculum can be inserted through the opening of the vagina without lubrication. It depends on how loose the muscles around it. It would be more difficult for a person who has not been sexual active to receive a penis into the vagina than a person who has been very much engaged in sexual activities.
84. Dr Anareta further stated that if a forcible penetration took place into the vagina of a victim when her vagina was not elongated due to lack of arousal, it could lead to micro vaginal injuries or visible injuries. She could not confirm whether the victim had actually sustained with micro injuries in her vagina.
85. In respect of the old blood which she found around perineum and vaginal vault, Dr Anareta said that if the examination was conducted within first three hours of the alleged incident and if she had sustained micro injuries, the blood should have been more brighter in colour. After three hours, blood would change into darker or brownish red colour. She could not confirm whether the examination was done within the first three hours or not. Fiji has no facilities to conduct colposcopy or staining test in order to determine the existence of micro injuries. Hence, she could not confirm the reasons for the existence of old blood with brownish red colour around perineum and vaginal vault. The reason could be due to any micro injuries or due the menses circle of the victim.
86. Dr Anareta then gave evidence explaining the medical report made by Dr. Baladina in respect of the foreign objects inserted in the penis of the first accused. She said that if the first accused raped the victim twice with his penis with foreign objects, still the tearing or laceration of the vagina depend on the force and the aggressiveness of the penetration.
87. She did not find any superficial injuries on the back side of the victim. No facial injuries were noted. Victim did not complain about any facial tenderness or any pain, neither had she complained about chest pain. If the victim was dressed in a mini sort and went through bushes with para grass, trees, debris etc. she would have got abrasion not only on upper thighs, but lower leg as well. If she put her legs up and was dragged, she would sustain injuries to her tight and lower abdomen. If there were stone on the ground, she would have sustained laceration as well.
88. In concluding the cross examination, Dr Anareta said that if she were to take only the findings and observation of the vaginal examination in to consideration, then it is most likely that the victim would have had consensual sex. However, consensual sexual intercourse too could lead to vaginal injuries. (This is very important).
89. The learned counsel for the second accused informed the court that he would adopt the evidence adduced during the cross examination by the first accused.
90. The third witness of the prosecution is Samuela Vakarorogo. He resides at Navaka village. He was a fifteen years old boy in the year 2012. He could recall that he went to swim and spear diving at Nawaka river with two of his friends in the morning of 25th of August 2012. He left home after his breakfast. Two friends were Koroi and Prasant. They were from Vatutu. While they were doing spear fishing, he saw Sitivieni and Epeli were drinking under the mango tree. Sitiveni swore at him and Koroi. They then ran away towards the cassava plantation.
91. On the same day Samuela saw Sitiveni and Epeli again while he was crossing the river to the other side. He saw one Fijian girl screaming. Prasant told him that they have to call for help. But they were scared and went away. He did not know why the girl was screaming. Sitiveni and Epeli were pulling her hair and were facing backward to them. When he saw this incident, he was about 50 meters away from Epeli and Sitiveni. The girl was on the ground. She was screaming and was not saying anything. They were pulling her to stand up. He knows Sitiveni and Epeli. He saw this incident around 11 a.m. of that day. There were no other people around the area at that time. There are houses nearby to that place.
92. During the cross examination, you may recall Samuela explained about the area where he saw Sitiveni and Epeli were pulling a girl. It is a popular drinking place for the villagers from Navaka and Vatutu. There is a feeder road to the mango tree from the main road and there were 4 to 5 houses along the feeder road in the year 2012. Apart from the feeder road, there is a track that goes towards the tower and then it leads to the main road. They are the two main access to the mango tree from the main road. The mango tree was at a higher elevation from the river bank.
93. The fourth witness of the prosecution is Ratu Apisai Sabanisusu. He is from Navaka village. He was in a relationship with the victim in the year 2012. He cannot exactly recall when he started this relationship. It was an open relationship, where no commitment from both sides. He was in a relationship with the elder sister of the victim and has a child with the elder sister. He met the victim when she came to pick milk formula from him.
94. Ratu recalls that he was drinking with his uncle Joji at his house in the morning of 25th of August 2012. He called Rosa and invited her to come and drink with them. Ratu said that Rosa knew that she was coming to Navaka and drink with him when he called her to invite. She then came in a carrier. He paid the fare for her transportation. It was the first time Rosa came to Navaka village. She was introduced to his uncle by Ratu. In a while the first accused, his wife, second accused and Sitiveni came and joined with them. Ratu went to kitchen to cook chicken and sausage while others were drinking in the sitting room. They were all seated on the floor. Rosa also came to kitchen while he was cooking. He then went back to the sitting room and served the food. He then went to town to do shopping. He told Rosa to wait for him and he will drop her home when he returns. When he returned he found Rosa had gone. His aunty Leba told him that Apisai gave her bus fare and she left. He did not make any effort to find Rosa. He had Rosa’s mobile phone with him. She gave her mobile phone and he did not know the reason for it.
95. Ratu further stated that Rosa did not inform him that she was drinking with a male friend in the night of 24th of August 2012. She only told him that she was with friends. She did not tell him that she was drinking in Nadi. He does not know whether Rosa knew his mobile phone number by heart. She was very comfortable in the drinking party and did not complain anything to him. When she came to Navaka, she was alright. It was the first time Rosa met the people who were in the drinking party.
96. During the cross examination, Ratu explained about the area that this alleged incident took place. The mango tree is a popular place for drinking. There are two houses close to the mango tree. Apart from the feeder road and the track that goes towards the tower, there are many tracks that lead to the main road. However, if someone does not know the place, might get injured if he tries to go alone those tracks other than the feeder road and the track goes towards the tower.
97. The last prosecution witness is DC Gupta, who is the investigation officer of this matter. He received a report on the 25th of August 2012 at about 2130 hours. It was reported by a staff nurse. He then left to Nadi hospital and accompanied by WPC Grace. He left around 2140 hours. When he visited the victim, she was heavily drunk and incapable of giving the statement. She could not properly tell what has happened. When he visited the victim, she had been already attended by a staff nurse. The staff nurse who reported the matter was met by WPC Grace. He tried to ask the victim about what happened, but she was not in a position to answer for it. Hence, DC Gupta and WPC Grace left her, leaving her to rest and came back on the following morning. She was psychically and mentally disturbed. He can’t recall what she was wearing and whether she had injuries when he visited her first time.
98. The medical form was filled by WPC Grace in his presence. Background information was provided to WPC Grace by one staff nurse. He was not present when the doctor recorded the history related by the victim in the medical report.
99. When DC Gupta visited the victim on the following morning and found that she was okay. She told him that one old Fijian man and another Fijian man raped her while another Fijian man tried to help her. Her statement was recorded by IP Maciu. He was not present when the statement was recorded.
100. After his visit to the hospital, they planned the investigation and appointed different teams to carry out different parts of the investigation. He then went to scene of the crime and made a sketch plan. He then put his signature on the sketch plan. You may recall DC Gupta then explained the contents that he has put in the sketch plan. He has found several pieces of cloths and a track mark. He found some cracked cassava sticks, which he considered as the place of this alleged rape took place. There were no any other tracks, neither any houses around the area. The feeder road is the best possible route to the main road from the area.
101. During the cross examination DC Gupta stated that he only involved in making the sketch plan. He did not interview any of the accused in this matter. When he charged the two accused, he had the statements of the witnesses, caution interviews of the accused and the medical report. He further stated that he was accompanied by the victim to the scene when he went to make the sketch plan. DC Gupta has signed the sketch plan but non of the accused person has signed and endorsed it. He does not know that the place of this alleged incident took place was a popular drinking place of the village.
102. D.C Gupta stated that none of the witnesses nor the accused mentioned in their respective statements that the accused brought beer in a carton. He has assumed that the empty carton of beer that he found at the scene would be the one used by the accused. Furthermore, DC Gupta said that none of the witnesses nor the accused persons stated that the alleged raped was took place on a cassava plantation. He has taken photos of the foot print that he found along the track. However those photos were lost with the memory card.
103. DC Gupta in his cross examination stated that he found a blue colour face towel and pair of flip fop. The blue face towel has not been recorded in the sketch plan. He has further found a white colour vest. It was a female vest. He cannot recall whether the victim came to hospital in a white colour vest or not. He did not find any ladies undergarment or mini short during his investigation around the scene of the crime. When he was suggested by the learned counsel for the first accused that his sketch plan was wrong, he denied the said proposition. He was then extensively questions about the surrounding of the place with reference to the photographs taken on 31st of August 2016. He said the place and the surrounding has been changed a lot and he could not recall or recognised the areas shown in those photos. DC Gupta said that he conducted the investigation fairly.
104. During the cross examination of the counsel for the second accused, DC Gupta said that statements of three young boys were recorded during the cause of the investigation. They were at the river during this alleged crime was taken place. One of the boys who gave statement has stated in his statement that a man in a white shirt brought the girl and then he saw them kissing.

The Evidence of the Defence

105. At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the accused persons were explained about their rights in defence. The accused persons opted to give evidence on oaths and called witnesses for their defence respectively.
106. The first accused, Apisai gave evidence on oath. I now summarised the evidence given by Apisai.
107. On the 31st of August 2016, Apisai took series of photos covering the areas of Joji’s house, super market of Navaka, Nabitu area including the mango tree and the Navaka river and the track goes along the river to his house. He tendered these photos as defence exhibits 1-4. On the same day he went for a medical examination in order to confirm that he has inserted four marbles in his penis. He has inserted this foreign object in his penis in 1983. He explained the effect of those foreign objects when he engaged with sexual relationship with his partner. Due to the foreign objects in his penis, his partner normally received injuries in her vaginal area. He had those marbles in his penis in the year 2012 as well. He has not informed the police about these foreign objects during the course of the investigation of this matter. He informed his counsel about these foreign objects only on the 31st of August 2016.
108. Apisai had been drinking with his girlfriend Koto, Sitiveni and Sitiveni’s girlfriend at Koto’s place in the night of 24th of August 2012. They started to drink again in the morning of 25th of August. They then went to Joji’s house to continue their drinking. According to Apisai, he had given a half a bottle of rum and some left over beer to Joji, saying that they can consume it during the day time. That was the reason he t went to Joji’s place with Koto and Sitiveni. Epeli joined the party later in the day.
109. When they reached Joji’s house, Joji, Ratu and Rosa had already started drinking. He asked Ratu about Rosa and found that she was the girl friend of Ratu. Rosa looked happy. In a while Ratu left to town. All of a sudden Rosa kissed him. He did not know the reason for her kissing. His girlfriend Koto got angry with it and was going to punch the girl. That incident led to an argument. After the argument, Leba, the wife of Joji came home.
110. Earlier, Rosa had asked his mobile phone to call Ratu. He then gave her the mobile phone. She then tried to call Ratu and retuned it saying that she could not reach Ratu. At that time, Koto asked him to give some money to Rosa for her bus fare to go back to Lautoka, which he gave to her. She kept the money and still stayed at the drinking party. When Leba arrived and got angry, they finished the drinking and moved out from the house. He went out from the front door and went up to the shop. Rosa must have gone from the back door. He followed Epeli and Sitiveni towards the shop. Epeli and Sitiveni went inside the shop of buy beer. He was standing outside. He looked and found Rosa was also standing beside him. He then told her that he already gave her fare and why she was not going back. They then followed the feeder road and went to the mango tree beside the river. Neither Apisai nor Epeli invited Rosa to come with them. In 2012, there were seven houses along the feeder road, three of them on the right side and remaining four of them on the left side.
111. When they reached to the mango tree, Rosa also came and sat with them. In a while Apisai went down to answer to the nature’s call. When he came back, he did not see Epeli and Rosa. He asked Sitiveni about them and found that both of them had gone up. While he was answering the nature’s call, he did not hear any scream of a girl from the direction of the drinking place. He then went up and saw Epeli and Rosa. He just stood up and spoke to them. He then came back and sit and continue to drink. When Epeli and Rosa came back, she complained to him about the sexual intercourse she had with Epeli. He then slapped her and told her that she already got her fare and why she was not going back. He saw injuries around the stomach of Rosa.
112. Once the drinks finished, Epeli and Sitiveni went and followed the feeder road. He came down to go his house. He told Rosa to come and go to his house. Rosa followed him. The reason he asked Rosa to come to his house was her attire as it was not an appropriate dress to cross the village. She can get a sulu from his house and then she can walk across the village. On their way they had to open the gates of the barbed wire fence. While they were walking, she started to hug him and then touched the front of his pants. They then kissed and had sexual intercourse. Rosa told him that she wanted the marble in his penis. He first perfumed oral sex on her vagina and vice versa. She then came on top of him and started to have sexual intercourse. While they were having sex, he fallen into sleep. The place that they had sexual intercourse is called as Emuri. It is a farming area and had nine blocks of land. They have been separated by fence with barbed wire.
113. When the police questioned him about this allegation, he denied it and informed them that he did not abduct the girl. But he has admitted that he had a consensual sexual intercourse with the girl in the afternoon of 25th of August 2012. He was then accompanied by two police officer for reconstruction of the scene of the crime. He pointed out the police the place where they consumed liquor and then the place where he had consensual sex with the girl. At that place, the police found a face towel and one black flip flop. He said that the face towel belonged to him. But he does not know about the flip flop. The police officers picked and took it with them.
114. Mr. Apisai was extensively cross examined by the learned counsel for the prosecution. I now draw your attention to the evidence adduced during the cross examination.
115. Apisai explained about the relationship he has with Joij, Epeli, Sitiveni, Ratu and Koto. They all are known and close people to him. Most of them are family and friends. Koto is now his wife. It was the first time that he met Rosa. Apisai stated that he was not aware about the age of Rosa. Apisai in his cross examination stated that Rosa was talking to others in the drinking party.
116. He said that all of a sudden Rosa kissed him on his lips. His girlfriend Koto then got angry and that led to an argument. Apisai slapped and swore at Koto. He said Leba was present when this incident took place. Leba tried to chase her but she did not go away. Apisai did not ask her to leave the house. He gave her bus fare thinking that she would go. Koto left the drinking party after the argument as she had to go to work in that evening. He said that he did not grab and forced Rosa to come with them when she was waiting at the roadside for her transportation. Rosa was not drunk, when he saw her standing beside him at the shop. Apisai could not recall that the beer bottles bought by Epeli and Sitiveni were in a carton or not. Rosa did not knocked out at the shop.
117. He saw some people were swimming in the river when they were drinking at the mango tree. He explained in his evidence about the two slops that found on the river bank just below the mango tree.
118. When Rosa came back with Epeli having sexual intercourse near the mango tree, he slapped her once. It was a forceful slap. She did not say anything. Rosa had a crying face. He slapped her because he already gave her bus fare, but she was still staying and came with them. He slapped Rosa in the presence of Epeli and Sitiveni. Rosa did not tell him that she want to go home while they were drinking at the mango tree.
119. Apisai in his cross examination denied that he dragged Rosa to a nearby cassava patch and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her. He agreed with the counsel for the prosecution that the lacerations found in Rosa’s stomach were caused by barbed wire. But they were not caused due to the dragging. He said he saw injuries on her when she came back with Epeli. Despite of seeing those injuries he still went on and slapped her. He then asked her to come and go to his house to change her cloths. The place of the mango tree is called as Nabitu and far from the village. If she want to go to the main road from Nabitu, it is not necessary for her to cross the village. She could easily go to the main road via feeder road without crossing the village
120. Apisai stated that she wore a sulu that was belonged to Leba’s daughter while she was at the drinking party. Rosa never begged him to take her back to the main road while they were drinking at the mango tree. When the drinks finished, he decided to drop Rosa and took a different route than of Epeli and Sitiveni. He did not grab her hand and forced her. She voluntarily came after him.
121. In relation to the second alleged incident of rape, Apisai said that he did not put any sulu on the ground to Rosa to lie down. He denied having forceful sexual intercourse with Rosa on his way back from the mango tree. Rosa complained to him about the sexual intercourse she had with Epeli at the mango tree. She did not complain about Ratu at the mango tree.
122. During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the second accused, Apisai stated that Rosa was not drunk at Joji’s house. Leba got angry because Rosa was wearing her niece’s cloths. Thereafter Leba told Rosa to leave the house, but she still stayed. The injuries he saw on the lower abdomen of Rosa was just a scratch. He said he has a good eye sights but he uses spectacles to read bible and Fiji Times.
123. The second witness of the first accused person is Dr. Baladina Kavoa. She is a medical doctor who graduated from the Fiji School of Medicine in the year 1991. She has been a medical practitioner for twenty four years. She could recall examining Apisai on the 31st of August 2016 at her medical clinic at Lautoka. Subsequent to the medical examination she made a report of her examination. Dr. Baladina examined the genital area of Apisai and found four rounded swellings in his penis. Apisai told her that they are four marbles. She measured them and found all were equal in size of 1.5 cm in diameter. She has only seen the swelling and Apisai confirmed her that they are marbles. It was the first time she medically examine Apisai.
124. During the cross examination, Dr. Baladina said that she could not confirm the age of those foreign object, but they might have been there for sometimes. She has only examine the marbles and did not measure the size of the penis of Apisai. Dr. Baladina said that she has examined victims of rape cases. She said that there could have been laceration if a seventeen years old girl had forceful sexual intercourse with a man having a penis containing foreign objects on three occasions. However it would depend on whether she was arouse and ready for the sexual intercourse or had given birth to a child etc.
125. The third witness of the first accused person is Wainisi Kotobalavu. She is the wife of the first accused person. She had been married to Apisai for two years. But she had been in a relationship with him since 2000. In the year 2012, she was renting a house at Navaka village and shared it with a friend namely Mili. Apisai was not living with her at that time, but he used to come and see her at her place. She could recall that on the 25th of August 2012, she went to Joij’s house with Apisai and Sitiveni. Sitiveni is her flat mate Mili’s boyfriend. When she went to Joij’s place, she found Rosa was already there with Ratu and Joji. She was dishing out the drinks to others. Her attire was not appropriate. They all enjoyed the drinking party. In a while Epeli arrived and joined the party. Ratu left the party and did not stay for long. Rosa was also enjoying the drinking. She was not acting like a stranger to the place.
126. Wainisi then saw Rosa was about to cry. She then asked Apisai to give her bus fare, which Apisai gave to her. Leba showed her the road and told her to go there and get a vehicle. However, Rosa kept on sitting. Then she found Rosa was kissing Apisai. She got angry and that led to an argument between her and Apisai. She then stood up and went home.
127. The following morning Police came to her house. Inspector Maciu came and asked her about Apisai. She recalls that she made a statement to the police. Maciu told her Apisai was in the cell and then her statement was recorded.
128. Wainisi then explained about her sexual relationship with Apisai. He has certain objects in his penis. They are marbles. Due to these objects, she receives injuries in her vaginal area whenever she engages in sexual intercourse with Apisai. Because of this reasons, they normally engage in sexual intercourse only four times in a month. Apisai normally perform oral sex on her before they engage in sexual intercourse in order to lubricate her vagina. She then explained that Apisai normally express his love in performing sex roughly.
129. She did not know Rosa was the girl friend of Ratu. Wainisi was not aware Rosa was a very young girl. She could not remember Rosa had asked Apisai his mobile phone. Rosa did not ask for her bus fare. However, Apisai gave Rosa her bus fare before she kissed him.
130. She said that the evidence she gave in the court is different from what has been recorded in her statement given to the police. She said Inspector Maciu did not ask her about this case. She admitted that her statement made to the police and the evidence given in the court is different.
131. Subsequently the second accused gave evidence on oath for his defence. I will now summarised his evidence given in the court.
132. Epeli could recall that he was at his home and had his breakfast when he received a call from Sitiveni inviting him to join with them for a drinking party in the morning of 25th of August 2012. He then went to Joji’s house to join the drinking party. He saw Rosa was drinking with others at the drinking party. It was the first time he saw Rosa. While they were drinking, Rosa used to look and smile at him. He then told her “uro” meaning beautiful. She smiled at him. She was wearing a sulu and a top when he came to Joji’s place. After a while Ratu left with a European man. In a while Leba came and she found Rosa was wearing her niece’s or her daughter’s cloths. Leba got angry and told Rosa to take it off. She then removed it. Epeli then stood up and went to toilet. While he was going to the toilet though the passage, he met Rosa. She was very close to him. He told her “urolevu”. She then hugged and kissed him. While they were kissing, Leba came. He then went back to the sitting room and Rosa went to toilet. After that Rosa came and sat next to Apisai. She then kissed Apisai and that led to an argument between Apisai and his girlfriend Koto.
133. Rosa was not shy and was conversing with others. After the argument, she was given her bus fare. She then came and sat beside him and Sitiveni. He then shook hand with her and told his name. While shaking hands, she scratched his palm. Rosa then started to poke and pinch him. In a while he found that Rosa was in tears. She did not cry loud. When he asked why she was crying, Rosa told him that she was hurt because Ratu has a child with her elder sister. He the hugged her and she put her head on his chest. Epeli told her not to cry and he will drop her back. After that she asked him to go outside. He then took a lead and she followed him. He asked her what she wants when he met her at the door near the toilet. She smiled and kissed him. While they were kissing, Leba came and told them to go inside and drink.
134. Epeli and Sitiveni made plans to go and buy more beer and drink them at his house. When the drinks finished they went out. He told Rosa that she could not go with them. She has to get a vehicle and go back. Epeli said that he and Sitiveni came out of the house when others were still inside. It was not Rosa, but they came first out of the house. When he was walking towards the shop with Sitiveni, he saw Apisai was following them and Apisai was followed by Rosa. He then went into the shop to buy beer with Sitiveni. They bought six bottles of beer and decided to drink three of them at Nabitu and the remaining three bottles to drink later at his home. Rosa and Apisai were standing outside the shop. She was not blackout at that place. They then followed the feeder road and came to the mango tree, where they started to drink beer. Rosa also came after them to Nabitu and sat next to him. They then started to kiss each other. Apisai then stood up and went down to answer the nature’s call. In a while Rosa stood up and asked him to come up. He then went with her and had consensual sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently, they got dress up and came back. Rosa then started to cry and said that Ratu made her sister pregnant. Apisai then slapped her because she was crying.
135. Epeli said that he did not drag Rosa to the bush. Rosa never screamed during their sexual encounter near the mango tree. He denied that Apisai pulled and dragged her to the bush and had forceful sexual intercourse with her. It was only Epeli had consensual sexual intercourse with her.
136. When the drinks finished, Apisai told them that he will follow the track and go home. Epeli and Sitiveni then followed the feeder road and went back. He asked Rosa to come with him and he will drop her to the main road. But Rosa wanted to follow Apisai and went with him. It was easy for Rosa to reach main road if she came along the feeder road. He further said that the vicinity of Nabitu has not changed much since 2012.
137. The first witness of the second accused person is Leba Pijila Raivola. She is the wife of Joji, the owner of the house where the drinking party took place on the 25th of August 2012. She could recall on the 25th of August 2012, she went to work in the morning. When she returned home around 1 p.m. she found Apisai, Koto, Sitiveni, Epeli and Rosa were drinking in the sitting room and her husband Joji was sleeping. She was angry because they were drinking at her house and Rosa was wearing clothes of her daughter. She asked her to remove them. She then found Rosa was crying. She asked her the reasons for crying. Rosa then told her Ratu had gone and she has no money to go back. Leba then asked Apisai to give her bus fare. She then told her to go back. But Rosa stayed. In a while Rosa kissed Apisai and that led to an argument and fight between Apisai and his girlfriend Koto. She again told Rosa to go but she did not. But in a while Rosa left the house.
138. Leba further stated that she found Rosa and Epeli was kissing each other, when she went to the passage that leads to the toilet of her house. She told them to go back to the sitting room. She saw them kissing again near the toilet. She again told them to go back. She was angry with Rosa. When the drinks finished they left the house. She then saw Rosa was also following the men towards the shop she did not see Apisai was forcing or dragging Rosa with him. Rosa was not that much drunk.
139. Leba in her evident explained about the house and the vicinity around it. She has made a statement to the police on 26th of August 2012. She did not tell everything that she told in her evidence given in the court. She has not stated in her statement given to the police about what happened in the house, conducts of Rosa and the incidents of kissing. She said that she should have told them to the police. It took only five minutes to record the statement and the police did not give her an opportunity to explain the event that took place at her house. She further said that she was supposed to give evidence as a prosecution witness, but later she was advised that she was not required for that.
140. The second witness of the second accused is Fazil Ali. He lives at Navaka village and also known as Papu. He could recall that on the 25th of August 2012, that was his mother’s birthday, he went to Navaka super market to buy cigarettes. It was around 2.30p.m. When he was coming out from the shop, he met Sitiveni and Epeli. Sitiveni went inside and brought some beer and Epeli was with him. Moreover he saw Apisai was standing outside of the shop with a girl. The girl looked like as 18-20 years old. He spoke to Epeli. According to Fazil Ali, the girl was not drunk as she was talking and smiling with Apisai. After the conversation, Epeli and Sitiveni went towards Nabitu and they were followed by Apisai and the girl. He then went back home.
141. During the cross examination he said that he could remember these events because it was his mother’s birthday and also later he came to know about this allegation of rape involving Epeli, Apisai and the girl. He did not go to police and reported what he saw as he did not see any crime taking place. Later on, Epeli met him and asked him to come to court and tell the truth of what he saw. He in his evidence stated that he did not see Apisai was dragging or pulling the girl to Nabitu. The girl was walking behind them toward Nabitu. The area around the super market is normally busy during Saturdays.
142. The last witness of the second accused is Sitiveni Tawase. He is a farmer and hunter and lives at Navaka Village. He could recall that he was at his girlfriend’s place in the morning of 25th of August 2012. He then went to Joji’s place for drinking with Apisai and Koto. On his way he called Epeli to come and joined with them. When he reached to Joji’s place, Ratu, Joji and Rosa were already there and have started drinking. When they arrived, all of them introduced to each other. Ratu then went to kitchen. After a while Ratu left the party and Epeli came and joined with them. While he was drinking, he went to toilet, where he saw Epeli and Rosa were kissing each other. He then called Epeli to come and drink. When Rosa came back, she started to talk with Apisai and then she kissed him. Koto, the girl friend of Apisai got angry and asked Rosa to leave the house. Apisai then got angry and punched the fridge. Koto then asked Apisai to give her bus fare and Apisai then gave her bus fare. In a while Leba, the wife of Joji came home and she got angry as Rosa was wearing her niece’s cloths. Leba asked her to remove the cloths. Leba then asked Rosa to leave the house.
143. During the drinking party, Sitiveni told Epeli that he has money to buy six bottles of beer and they can drink it at Epeli’s house. When the drink finished they got up and went out. They were the one who left the house first. They then went up to the shop. He saw Apisai was following them and Rosa was also following Apisai. Epeli and Sitiveni then went into the super market and bought beer. Beer was served to them in a beer carton. Apisai and Rosa were talking at the porch of the shop. Rosa was not drunk as most of the time she was not drinking. They then went to Nabitu to drink. He told Epeli they can drink three bottles at Nabitu and then can drink the remaining three bottles at home.
144. While they were drinking at the mango tree, Epeli and Rosa stood up and went toward the cassava plantation. After a while he went and check them. He saw they were naked and the girl was lying down and Epeli was performing oral sex on her. Epeli saw him and told him to go. Sitiveni then went and hid and observed them. Apisai then called him to come back.
145. When the drinks finished, Epeli and Apisai went back home along the feeder road and Apisai and Rosa went to other side. On the following day police came and took him to the police station. He was threatened and told to agree to what Rosa has said, otherwise, he will also be charged. He was shocked when he heard that Rosa had complained that she was raped.
146. During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the prosecution, Sitiveni explained about his close relationship with Epeli and Apisai. He said that what he said in his statement was not the accurate version of the event that took place in that evening. However, he has not made any complaint about the conduct of police forcing him to agree to a false statement over the last four years until he said it in court in evidence. He said that it was the first time that he was taken by the police for questioning and he was scared of the police. He was initially considered as a suspect of this allegation. He said that Rosa has told the police that he was the one actually helped her. Sitiveni said that he actually did not help her as she only had consensual sexual intercourse with Epeli. Apisai neither assaulted Rosa nor forcefully had sexual intercourse with her at the mango tree.
147. He said he was not served summon on the 27th of April 2016 to attend this case. However he could not attend to the court on the first date of this hearing on the 29th of August 2016, as he was sick. He was not aware of any bench warrant issued against him until the prosecution informed him about it.
148. I have summarised the evidence presented during the cause of this hearing. However, I might have missed some. It is not because they are not important. You have heard every items of evidence and reminded yourselves of all of them. What I did only to draw your attention to the main items of evidence and help you in reminding yourselves of the evidence.

Analysis of Evidence and Directions

149. You heard that the prosecution and the defence presented conflicting versions of events. The prosecution alleges that Rosa did not consent to have sexual intercourse with Apisai and Epeli. She claims that she was black out and unconscious at the shop and did not know how she came to the mango tree. Apisai and Epeli have assaulted her with intend to commit rape. Rosa claims that Apisai and Epeli dragged her to the place where they allegedly raped her near the mango tree. Apisai punched on her chest and pressed her thighs before forcefully inserted his penis into her vagina. On the second occasion, Apisai made her lie down on the ground and then strangled her neck, threatening her to be silent.
150. In contrast, the defence claims that Rosa was comfortable with the crowd at the drinking party. She voluntarily followed them to the mango tree after the drinking party at Joji’s house. She kissed Epeli at the mango tree and asked him to have sexual intercourse with her. She then induced Apisai by touching his front side of the pants when she was walking back with Apisai. She then engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with him.
151. The prosecution and the defence presented evidence in the forms of

1. Direct Evidence,
2. Circumstantial evidence,
3. Documentary evidence,
4. Expert evidence,

152. The direct evidence is the evidence of a person who saw, heard and/or felt the offence being committed. This evidence may directly prove a thing or fact.
153. If a Witness who actually did not see, hear or feel the offence being committed, but gives evidence of relevant circumstances and the events, from which you are able to make certain conclusion of the commission of the offence are considered as circumstantial evidence. If you find that such evidence is reliable, than you are allowed to make an inference of the existence of another fact. You need to be careful that such inferences should certainly and only find the accused is guilty of the offence. If the circumstances or the event established by evidence suggest you some other probable circumstances or inferences, which show the innocence of the accused or creates a doubts as to his guilt or innocence, you are not entitled to draw any inference of guilt of the accused person.
154. The evidence presented in the form of documents is considered as documentary evidence. In this case, the prosecution and the defence tendered number of documents in the form of documentary evidence.
155. It is the general rule that witnesses are normally not allowed to give opinion and only allow to give evidence on what they have seen, heard, or felt by their physical sense. However, the exception is that the evidence of expert witnesses. Expert witnesses are those who are learned and experts in a particular subject or field with relevant experience. Such witnesses are allowed to give evidence of their opinion.
156. In this case you have heard the evidence of Dr Anareta, who was called by the prosecution as an expert in the field of medicine and Dr Baladina who was called on behalf of the first accused person. Dr Anareta in her evidence explained and gave her professional opinion about the medical findings that she found during the medical examination of the victim. She further gave her expert opinion about the foreign objects inserted in the penis of male. Dr. Baladina has examined the penis of first accused person and tendered a report of it. She explained in her evidence about the foreign objects that she examined in the penis of the first accused person during her examination.
157. Expert evidence is permitted in a criminal trial to provide you with scientific and professional information and opinion, which is within the witness' expertise, but which is likely to be outside your experience and knowledge. It is by no means unusual for evidence of this nature to be called; and it is important that you should see it in its proper perspective, which is that it is before you as part of the evidence as a whole to assist you with regard to the injuries, the physical and medical condition of the victim subsequent to this alleged offence and also the foreign objects inserted in to the penis of the first accused and its impact in sexual encounters.
158. With regard to these particular aspects of the evidence you are not experts; and it would be quite wrong for you as assessors to attempt to and/ or to come to any conclusions on those issues on the basis of your own observations or experiences. However you are entitled to come to a conclusion based on the whole of the evidence which you have heard, and that of course includes the expert evidence.
159. You should bear in mind that, having carefully considered, if you do not accept the evidence of the expert/s, you do not have to act upon it. In a case where two or more experts have given conflicting evidence, it is for you to decide whose evidence, and whose opinions you accept. You should remember that this evidence relates only to part of the case, and that whilst it may be of assistance to you in reaching your opinion, you must reach your opinion having considered all the evidence.
160. In order to determine whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the two accused persons are guilty for the offences as charged, you have to consider the credibility of the witnesses, and the reliability of their evidence. It is for you to decide whether you accept the whole of what a witness says, or only part of it, or none of it. You may accept or reject such parts of the evidence as you think fit. It is for you to judge whether a witness is telling the truth and is correctly recalling the facts about which he or she has testified. You can accept part of a witness’s evidence and reject other parts. A witness may tell the truth about one matter and lie about another; he or she may be accurate in saying one thing and not accurate in another thing.
161. In assessing evidence of the witnesses, you must consider whether the witness had the opportunity to see, hear and or feel what the witness is testifying in the evidence. You then should consider whether the evidence presented by the witness is probable or improbable considering the circumstances of the case. Apart from that, you are required to consider the consistency of the witness not only with his or her own evidence but also with other evidence presented in the case.
162. It is your duty as judges of facts to consider the demeanor of the witnesses, how they react to being cross examined and re-examined, where they evasive, in order to decide the credibility of the witness and the evidence.
163. You may recall that Apisai, Epeli, Wainisi, Leba and Sitiveni in their respective evidence stated that Rosa was dressed in cloths belonged to Leba’s daughter when she was drinking with them at the drinking party. However, Rosa was never asked about it when she gave evidence. Moreover, Epeli in his evidence stated that Rosa came and sit beside him while they were drinking at Joji’s place and started to cry. She then complained to Elepi that Ratu has a child with his elder sister and it hurts her. Epeli then comforted her and she kept her head on his shoulder. Rosa was not asked about such an incident when she gave evidence. You may also recall that Apisai in his evidence stated that Rosa complained him about the sexual intercourse Elepi had with her near the mango tree. That proposition was also never put to Rosa to make comments when she gave evidence.
164. It is a rule of evidence in criminal trials that if one party is going to present a different version of events from the other, witnesses for the opposing party who are in a position to comment on that version should be given an opportunity to comment on them. The failure to such questions could be used to draw an inference that the accused did not give that account of events to his counsel. That in turn, may have a bearing on whether you accept what the accused said on that particular point or event. However, before you draw such an inference you should consider other possible explanations for the failure of counsel to put questions about such different versions.
165. In preparation for trial, usually counsel would be given his client’s instructions: that is, what his client has to say about the matter in written form or in oral form or both. Counsel then uses that information from his client to ask questions of the opposing side’s witnesses. However, communication between individuals is seldom perfect; misunderstandings may occur. The counsel may miss something of what their client is telling them. In the pressures of a trial, counsel may simply forget to put questions on an important matter. You should consider whether there are other reasonable explanations for the failure to ask the victim about such different versions. You should not draw any inference adverse to the accused’s credibility unless there is no other reasonable explanation for that failure.
166. I now draw your attention to D10 of the medical report, that is at page three, where Dr Anareta has recorded the history given by the victim during the examination as that“ the victim was drinking alcohol with her friends and sister from 11p.m. of Friday to 6 a.m. Saturday morning. Her friend dropped off her at the roundabout. Two boys put a sack on her head, punched her on face and she lost consciousness. When she awake, she was by the river bank in Nawaka under a mango tree. Four boys were nearby, three raped her while the other one tried to stop them. They raped her several time, hit her, laugh at her. She managed to climb over a fence nearby escaping there”.
167. Dr Anareta in her evidence stated that she could not exactly recall whether the victim related this history before or after the examination. Dr. Anareta said that as per the documentation, the history was related to her by the victim. She explained the procedure of recording the history from a victim during the examination. If the victim was not in a condition to relate the history, they will proceed with examination but the recording of the history be kept hold until the victim is ready to do so.
168. Initially, Rosa in her evidence said that she could not remember giving that information which has been recorded under D10. She has given her consent to the medical examination and could remember that her mother was also present during the medical examination. However, during the cross examination by the learned counsel of the second accused, Rosa said that she gave this wrong information because she was really drunk. She further stated that she was not confused of what had happened.
169. You have to determine whether the victim actually informed Dr Anareta about the history as recorded under D10 of the Medical Report. If you determined that the victim has actually stated those information to Dr Anareta, you can then consider it as evidence of recent complain.
170. The evidence of recent complaint is not an evidence as to what actually happened between the victim and the accused persons. Dr Anareta was not present and witnessed what happened between them. You are entitled to consider the evidence of recent complaint in order to decide whether or not Rosa has told the truth. It is for you to decide whether the evidence of recent complain helps you to reach a decision, but it is important that you must understand that the evidence of recent complaint is not independent evidence of what happened between the victim and the accused persons. It therefore cannot of itself prove that the complaint is true.
171. The recent complaint needs not disclose all of the ingredients of the offence. But it must disclose evidence of material and relevant unlawful sexual conduct on the part of the Accused. It is not necessary for the complainant to describe the full extent of the unlawful sexual conduct, provided it is capable of supporting the credibility of the complainant’s evidence.
172. You might recall that the learned counsel for the first accused and the second accused in their respective closing submissions proposed you to consider the inconsistent nature of the evidence given by the victim with the information she has provided to the police officer who filled the first page of the medical report.
173. It has been recorded under A(4) of the first page of the medical report that the victim had alleged that she was raped by three Fijian youths at Legalega, Nadi. Rosa in her evidence stated that it was not her statement. She said WPC Grace made a mistake in writing. Rosa could recall that a women police officer visited her at the hospital. DC Gupta in his evidence stated that WPC Grace filled the medical examination form in his presence. She was provided the information to fill the form by a staff nurse and not the victim. WPC Grace was not call to give evidence.
174. It is your duty as judges of fact to determine whether the victim actually informed WPC Grace, that she was raped by three Fijian boys at Legalega. If you satisfied that she made such statement to the police officer you than can consider it with the evidence given by the victim in the court in order to determine the credibility and reliability of her evidence.
175. The two learned counsel for the defence further proposed you in their respective closing submissions that the evidence given by Rosa in respect of her visit to Navaka and her conversation with Ratu are inconsistence with the evidence given by Ratu in to that effect.
176. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the prosecution invited your attention to consider the inconsistent nature of the evidence given by Wainisi, Leba, and Sitiveni, with their respective statements made to the police.
177. I will now explain you the purpose of considering the inconsistent nature of the evidence given by a witness in court and the previously made statement by the same witness. You are allowed to take into consideration about such inconsistencies and the omissions when you consider credibility and reliability of the evidence given by the witness.
178. The evidence is what a witness told us in court on oath/affirmation. If you are satisfied that a witness has made a statement which is in conflict with his evidence given in court, you may take into account that inconsistency when you determine the credibility and reliability of the evidence given by the witness.
179. In examining suggested inconsistencies, you have to first determine whether there is in fact and in true context, an inconsistency; and if you decide that there is one, then you have to decide whether it is material and relevant or, on the other hand insignificant or irrelevant. If there is an inconsistency, it might lead you to conclude that the witness is generally not to be relied upon; alternatively, that a part only of his/ her evidence is inaccurate; or you may accept the reason he has provided for the inconsistency and consider him to be reliable as a witness.
180. I now draw your attention to the evidence adduced by the defence during the course of the hearing. Both of the accused persons elected to give evidence on oath and also decided to call witnesses for their respective defence. The accused persons were not obliged to give evidence. They were not obliged to call any witnesses. They do not have to prove their innocence. They do not have to prove anything.
181. However, the two accused persons decided to give evidence and also to call witnesses on their behalf. You must then take what the two accused persons and their respective witnesses adduced in evidence into account when considering the issues of fact which you are determining.
182. It is for you to decide whether you believe the evidence of the accused and their witnesses. If you considered that the account given by the defence through the evidence is or may be true, then the accused must be acquitted.
183. But even if you entirely reject the account given by the defence, that would not relieve the prosecution of its burden of making you sure by evidence that the two accused persons guilt for these offences as charged in the information.
184. Upon consideration of whole of the evidence adduced during the course of the hearing, if you are satisfied that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused has committed the offence of rape as charged under count one of the information, you can find the first accused is guilty for the said count of rape.
185. If you are satisfied or have doubt that the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused has committed the offence of rape as charged under count one of the information, you must find the first accused is not guilty for the said count of rape and acquit him accordingly.
186. Likewise, if you are satisfied that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the second accused has committed the offence of rape as charged under count two of the information, you can find the second accused is guilty for the said count of rape.
187. If you are satisfied or have doubt that the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the second accused has committed the offence of rape as charged under count two of the information, you must find the second accused is not guilty for the said count of rape and acquit him accordingly.
188. If you are satisfied that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused has committed the offence of rape as charged under count three of the information, you can find the first accused is guilty for the said count of rape.
189. If you are satisfied or have doubt, that the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused has committed the offence of rape as charged under count three of the information, you must find the first accused is not guilty for the said count of rape and acquit him accordingly.
190. If you are satisfied that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused has committed the offence of assault with intent to commit rape as charged under count four of the information, you can find the first accused is guilty for the said count of assault with intent to commit rape.
191. If you are satisfied or have doubt, that the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused has committed the offence of assault with intent to commit rape as charged under count four of the information, you must find the first accused is not guilty for the said count and acquit him accordingly.
192. If you are satisfied that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the second accused has committed the offence of assault with intent to commit rape as charged under count five of the information, you can find the second accused is guilty for the said count of assault with intent to commit rape.
193. If you are satisfied or have doubt, that the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the second accused has committed the offence of assault with intent to commit rape as charged under count four of the information, you must find the second accused is not guilty for the said count and acquit him accordingly.
194. Madam and gentleman assessors, I now conclude my summing up. It is time for you to retire and deliberate in order to form your individual opinion on the charges against the two accused person. Each of you have taken an oath or affirmation to return a true opinion according to the evidence. This is a responsibility you must fulfill. Each of you takes into this penal of assessors your individual experience and wisdom. Your task is to pool that experience and wisdom. You do that by giving your views and listening and giving due consideration to the views of others. There must necessarily be a discussion and debate, as a result of which an individual may be persuaded to accept a view which he or she did not previously hold. But, of course, you must at all times stay true to your oath or affirmation to give a true opinion according to the evidence.
195. Once you have reached your opinion, you may please inform the clerks, so that the court could be reconvened.
196. Learned counsel of the prosecution and the accused, do you have any redirections to the assessors?

R. D. R. Thushara Rajasinghe

Judge

Solicitors : Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Messrs K Law for the First Accused person

Messrs MIQ Lawyers for the Second Accused person