Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Criminal Case No.: HAC 33 of 2017
STATE
V
PRASHANT RAJU
Counsel : Ms. P. Lata for the State.
: Mr. S. Nand for the Accused.
Dates of Hearing : 18, 19 and 20 May 2020
Closing Speeches : 21 May, 2020
Date of Summing Up : 21 May, 2020
Date of Judgment : 25 May, 2020
Date of Sentence : 08 June, 2020
SENTENCE
(The name of the victim is suppressed she will be referred to as “PW”)
COUNT ONE
[REPRESENTATIVE COUNT]
Statement of Offence
SEXUAL ASSAULT: Contrary to section 210 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence
PRASHANT RAJU, between the 1st January, 2015 and the 31st of December, 2015 at Nadi in the Western Division, unlawfully and indecently
assaulted “PW” a 9 year old girl, by licking her vagina and sucking her breasts.
COUNT TWO
[REPRESENTATIVE COUNT]
Statement of Offence
SEXUAL ASSAULT: Contrary to section 210 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence
PRASHANT RAJU, between the 1st January, 2016 and the 30th of November, 2016 at Nadi in the Western Division, unlawfully and indecently assaulted “PW” a 9 year old girl, by licking her vagina and sucking her breasts.
COUNT THREE
Statement of Offence
RAPE: Contrary to section 207 (1) and (2) (a) and (3) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence
PRASHANT RAJU, between the 1st January, 2016 and the 30th of November, 2016 at Nadi in the Western Division, had carnal knowledge with “PW”, a 10 year old girl.
2. The brief facts were as follows:
In the year 2015 the victim was 9 years of age, she lived with her parents and other siblings at Solovi, Nadi. The accused is her father, from the middle of November 2015 to November 2016 the accused would come into the victim’s bedroom, after removing her clothes he would lick her vagina and suck her breasts for about 4 to 5 minutes.
a) The accused is a First offender;
b) 40 years of age;
c) Father of 4 children;
d) Sole bread winner of the family;
e) All his children are in primary school;
f) Wife is sickly and is not working.
8. I accept in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Anand Abhay Raj –vs.- The State, CAV 0003 of 2014 (20 August, 2014) that the personal circumstances of an accused person has little mitigatory value in cases of sexual nature.
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
9. The aggravating factors are:
(a) Breach of Trust
The victim is the biological daughter of the accused. The accused grossly breached the trust of his daughter by his actions and also abused the sanctity of the relationship between a father and a daughter. The Supreme Court in Gordon Aitcheson vs. The State, criminal petition no. CAV 0012 of 2018 (02 November, 2018) at paragraph 62 of the judgment endorsed the comments of the trial judge as follows:
“...Parents are the only trusted and dependable persons that a child has in her growing tender years. Turning that trusted dependable person into a monstrous demon who penetrated in to the innocent childhood of the child and destroy it with his own lustful sexual satisfaction, would undoubtedly jeopardise the child’s entire future life. Therefore, incest is a rape by extortion, in which a child’s very childhood becomes a weapon used to control her”.
(b) Planning
The accused had planned what he did, he knew the victim was alone at home, naive, innocent and vulnerable and he continued with his unlawful conduct.
(c) Age Difference
The victim was 9 years of age whereas the accused was 37 years of age. The age difference was substantial.
(d) Exposing a child to sexual abuse
The accused had exposed the victim to sexual activity at a very young age he basically robbed her of her innocence by exposing her to an unexpected sexual encounter.
(e) Victim Impact Statement
In the victim impact statement the victim stated that her life changed after what her father had done to her. When she thinks of the incidents she gets emotional. The victim experienced loss of concentration at school, loss of trust in people and has become short tempered due to the effects of the incidents. The victim has isolated herself from everyone due to stress and pressure and on one occasion she had become suicidal.
members sexually abuse children, violating the Domestic Violence Act, they should not expect any mercy from this court. The punishment ought to be such that it takes into account the society’s outrage and denunciation against such conduct. A long term imprisonment becomes inevitable in such situations.
“It is useful to refer to the observation expressed by the Fiji Court of Appeal in Matasavui v State; Crim. App. No. AAU 0036 of 2013: 30 September [2016] FJCA 118 wherourt said that “N220;No society can afford to tolerate an innermost feeling among the people that offenders of sexual offenders of sexual crimes committed against mothers, daughters and sisters are not adequately punished by courts and such a society will not in the long run be able to sustain itself as a civilised entity.”
“Rape of children is a very serious offence indeed and it seembe veevalent in Fiji at the time. The legislation has dictated harsh penalties and coud courts arts are imposing those penalties in order to reflect society’s abhorrence for such crimes. Our nation’s children must be protected and they must be allowed to develop to sexual maturity unmolested. Psychologists tell us that the effect of sexual abuse on children in their later development is profound.”
(a) whether the crime had been planned, or whether it was incidental or opportunistic;
(b) whether there had been a breach of trust;
(c) whether committed alone;
(d) whether alcohol or drugs had been used to condition the victim;
(e) whether the victim was disabled, mentally or physically, or was specially vulnerable as a child;
(f) whether the impact on the victim had been severe, traumatic, or continuing;
(g) whether actual violence had been inflicted;
(h) whether injuries or pain had been caused and if so how serious, and were they potentially capable of giving rise to STD infections;
(i) whether the method of penetration was dangerous or especially abhorrent;
(j) whether there had been a forced entry to a residence where the victim was pre sent;
(k) whether the incident was sustained over a long period such as several hours;
(l) whether the incident had been especially degrading or humiliating;
(m) If a plea of guilty was tendered, how early had it been given. No discount for plea after victim had to go into the witness box and be cross-examined. Little discount, if at start of trial;
(n) Time spent in custody on remand.
(o) Extent of remorse and an evaluation of its genuineness;
(p) If other counts or if serving another sentence, totality of appropriate sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE COUNTS
Sunil Sharma
Judge
Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State.
Messrs. Fazilat Shah Legal, Lautoka for the Accused.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2020/432.html