State v Chand [2019] FJHC 408; HAC70.2018 (26 April 2019)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Criminal Case No. HAC 70 of 2018

STATE

V

RAMESH CHAND

Counsel : Miss D. Rao for the State
Mr. J. Reddy for the Accused

Dates of Trial : 23, 24 and 25 April 2019
Date of Summing Up : 25 April 2019
Date of Judgment : 26 April 2019

JUDGMENT

1. The accused has been tried in this Court on the following count:

Statement of Offence

ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE GRIEVOUS HARM: Contrary to section 255 (a) of the Crimes Act 2009.

Particulars of Offence

RAMESH CHAND on 10 September 2018, at Seaqaqa in the Northern Division, with intent to do grievous harm to ANJANI DEVI unlawfully wounded the said ANJANI DEVI with a chainsaw.

2. Three assessors have returned with unanimous opinions of not guilty to the count.

3. The prosecution case came mainly from the evidence of the victim Ms. Devi and her husband Santa.

4. They spoke of the long time bad relationship with their neighbours (the accused and his wife). They told of years of harassment, threats and swearing by the couple. The underlying cause of this dispute was that the accused and his wife were dissatisfied with the beneficial share of land left to the accused’s wife, as opposed to the share left to her brother the victim’s husband Santa by their father. Much was made of this probate dispute at trial but in the Court’s view this land dispute was irrelevant save as to serve as an interesting background to the bad feeling between the parties.

5. The victim, Ms Devi gave clear and convincing evidence of the attack on her on the date in question. She told of her fear of the accused and how he suddenly ran at her with a running chain saw in his hands. He placed it near her neck and she fell. In trying to protect her neck she raised her arm causing the wound to the forearm which the medical witness said was serious. Having seen the thick shirt she was wearing, it would appear that there was some contact between the saw and her upper shoulder and from there seems to be a jumping down the sleeve to the wound area just below the elbow. It can only have been the rather thick material of the shirt that caught the blades and stopped them causing more damage.

6. The evidence of her husband, Santa corroborated her evidence (not that corroboration is needed) - he described the attack in very similar vein.

7. The accused gave evidence telling the Court it was an unfortunate accident that happened when he was prodded in the back and he swung around holding the saw. He didn’t know how the victim got injured. He denied all of the allegations made by the victim and her husband.

Analysis

8. Whilst the accused does not have to prove anything to the Court, I did not believe his version of events. Nothing he said made me doubt the credible and forthright evidence given by the two prosecution witnesses.

9. He was hesitant and evasive and his version of events did not accord with the incriminating evidence of the torn shirt. If he had just turned and came into contact with the victim, she would not have had signs of cutting all along the arm of the shirt.

10. Nor did his attempts to minimize the tension between the two families assist him. In 2017, he had instilled so much fear in the victim with threats to kill her that she went to the lengths of obtaining a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against him to protect herself. This order was exhibited at trial.

11. The Court finds that the accused did run towards the victim with a running chain saw. That being so, and it being an extremely dangerous weapon, the Court has no doubt whatsoever that his intention was to cause her grievous harm. If he intended merely to frighten her there would have been no signs of contact with her shirt.

12. The Court rejects the opinions of the assessors and finds the accused guilty of the charge.

13. He is convicted accordingly.

14. That is the Judgment of the Court.

P. K. Madigan
Judge

At Labasa
26 April 2019