You are here:
PacLII >>
Databases >>
High Court of Fiji >>
2024 >>
[2024] FJHC 631
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Download original PDF
State v Ali [2024] FJHC 631; HAC 175 of 2018 (21 October 2024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 175 OF 2018
STATE
v
SHAHID ALI
Counsel : Ms. S. Prakash for State
Mr. S. Heritage instructed by Iqbal Khan and Associates for Defence
Dates of Hearing: 15 - 18 October 2024
Date of Judgment: 21 October 2024
(The name of the Complainant is suppressed. She is referred to as PK)
JUDGMENT
- The Accused is charged with one count of Rape and one count of Assault with Intent to Commit Rape. The information reads as follows:
Count One
Statement of Offence
RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (a) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of the Offence
SHAHID ALI on the 13th day of September 2018, at Sigatoka in the Western Division had carnal knowledge of PK without her consent.
Count Two
Statement of Offence
ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE: Contrary to Section 209 of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence
SHAHID ALI on 13th day of September 2018 at Sigatoka, in the Western Division assaulted PK with intent to commit rape.
- The accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. At the ensuing trial, the Prosecution presented the evidence of the complainant and
two other witnesses.
- At the end of the Prosecution’s case, the Court found sufficient evidence to put the Accused to his defence. Upon being explained
the rights in his defence, the Accused exercised his right to give evidence under oath.
- The Counsel from both sides tendered written submissions. Having considered the evidence presented at the trial and the Counsel's
submissions, I now pronounce my judgment as follows.
- The Prosecution bears the burden of proving each offence's elements. That burden must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt, and it
never shifts to the Accused at any stage of the trial. The presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused will prevail until the
charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused is under no obligation to prove his innocence or prove anything at all.
- I shall now summarise the salient parts of evidence led in this trial.
Case for Prosecution
PW1 PK (The Complainant)
- PK testified that she is now 19 years old and married. She currently resides in Ba with her husband and in-laws. In 2018, she was
in Nausori with her mother and younger brother.
- On 10 September 2018, she was in Matage, Sigatoka, with her mother visiting her uncle Sonu. On the 12th her mother went back to Nausori to pay the house rent leaving her behind. She stayed there until the incident happened on 13 September
2018.
- On the morning of 13 September 2018, she was at Sonu uncle’s house together with her grandmother who came from Australia. On
the morning of the 13th, her grandmother went back to Suva and Uncle Sonu also went to town leaving her at Saroj Aji (grandmother)’s place about 100
meters away from Sonu’s house. When she was staying at Saroj Aji’s place, her aunt’s husband Uncle Shahid came
with her dad’s uncles and aunts, from shopping at around 1.30 p.m. They started drinking beer outside.
- At around 3 p.m. Uncle Shahid wanted her to accompany him to pick up his wife Ashika, one of her aunties, from school. She got permission
from Saroj Aji and went with Shahid in his car. They first went to Uncle Sonu’s place to pick up her shoes and phone. She was
sitting on the rear passenger side on the left. Shahid drove the car towards town. At the junction, he turned his car to the left
when he was supposed to go straight to pick up his wife. She asked Shahid why he was going there. He replied that they were going
to have a bath in the sea. She told him that she didn’t want to have a bath but to be dropped home. He parked the car near
the sea and locked the doors. She insisted that she be dropped home.
- He told her that nothing would happen and that whatever happens will be between them and not to be told to anybody else. Then, she
started yelling out loudly. From the driver’s seat, he got hold of her pants and pulled the driver’s seat to the back.
He started pulling the pants and then he came from the front to the back seat and got hold both of her shoulders. He tried to make
her lie down and opened the lock on the left side to make both her legs put outside. He then pulled her pants down, lifted her right
leg and placed it on the armrest. He opened his pants and came on top of her. He took out some saliva from his hand and rubbed it
to his penis. While he was still yelling, he put his penis inside her vagina. He slapped on her left face twice and told her to be
quiet. But she kept yelling, trying to push him away. He then used one of his hands to cover her mouth so she would not yell. She
bit his hand forcing him to take his hand away from her mouth. He started kissing her and used the other hand to remove her top while
moving his penis in and out of her vagina. After that, he took his penis out and ejaculated outside by dropping a little bit on top
of her vagina. He wiped his penis with a cloth and tried to wipe her. She pushed him away and warned him that she would tell everyone
at home of all that he had done to her.
- He then got out of the car. She tried to pick up her phone to call her mother. He snatched her phone and threw it in front of the
passenger seat. He made her wear her pants and wore his pants. He closed the door pressing the lock and came around to sit at the
driver’s seat. He told her to tie up her hair and warned her not to tell Aunty Ashika or anybody else of whatever had happened.
Then he drove the car towards town at full speed.
- At Volivoli, he had to reduce the speed at the first hump. As soon as he reached the 2nd hump, she opened the door and jumped out of the car. She then started running towards where the iTaukei ladies were selling pawpaw
on the roadside. He went and stopped his car a bit further down and started running after her.
- A Fijian man came in a vehicle, stopped by and inquired what had happened and why she looked like that. She did not want to say anything,
as she feared because he too was a man. Shahid came and told her to sit inside the car. She then started crying loudly. Then the
Fijian driver asked Shahid what had happened and why she was crying. Shahid told him that she was his girlfriend and that they had
an argument /fight with each other. She said ‘No’ loudly. The Fijian man told Shahid to stay away from her. When Shahid
approached her, the Fijian man pushed him. Then Shahid got in the car and went towards town.
- The Fijian man stopped a taxi going towards Sigatoka town. Two Fijian ladies came out, one of whom was known to that Fijian man. The Fijian man requested the ladies to be with her until he
brought the police down. The Fijian ladies, because they were in a rush, offered to take her to the police station.
- She hugged one Fijian lady tightly and started crying. This Fijian lady made her sit in the taxi and, on the way, asked what had happened.
Then she told the Fijian lady that her uncle had kissed her, touched her private part and other places, and he had also raped her.
When they reached the police station, one male police officer was there. She was afraid of him as he was also a man. Then a Fijian
lady asked for a female police officer so that they could hand her over to police.
- Then two female officers came and questioned her about what had happened. She said that her uncle had raped her. Then they took her
statement and took her to the place where she was raped and then to the hospital. She was admitted to the hospital for one week.
She had injuries all over her body, on her breast, and knee. The left side of her face was swollen and there was tenderness on her
neck. Her mother came to see her on the same day.
- She had met her uncle Shahid twice before the incident. The first time was when she came to Sigatoka, after Shahid and Ashika’s
wedding a few months before the incident. The second meeting was when Shahid and Ashika visited her in Nausori where they stayed
a night. When she came to Sigatoka on 10 September 2018, between 10 -13 September 2018, she met Shahid every day during dinner time
at Uncle Sonu’s house. She pointed out the Accused sitting in Court.
- Under cross-examination, referring to her statement dated 13 September 2018, PK agreed that she had not told the police that she had
taken her grandmother’s permission to go with Shahid to pick up Ashika. She agreed the beach is on the right side of the highway.
She agreed the beach was a popular picnic spot, but she later denied that people come there for walks and picnics. She agreed the
beach was near Uncle Sonu’s house.
- She agreed the car door could have been opened even though it was locked; she tried to escape but she did not know that the door could
be opened through the lock. She agreed that she didn’t kick or scratch his face. But she was pushing him and biting his hand.
She denied that her voice could have been heard at Uncle Sonu’s house had she been shouting at the top of her voice. She denied
that she could have escaped when Shahid got out to put on his pants. She denied that, given her hands were free, could have called
her mum had she been under threat of being raped. She explained that the phone was somewhere on the seat.
- The police did not take her to Volivoli Village when they took the photographs. She did not attempt to jump until the car came to
the 2nd hump because the car was being driven too fast. After jumping, she was just sitting down on the grass. She denied having not told
the Fijian ladies that she was raped. She could not recall if she had told the doctor that Shahid took her under a false pretense
and by force to Sigatoka and that she was taken to the (sand) dunes, not the beach, and that soon after the alleged rape happened,
she wore her clothes and escaped. She denied the injuries were caused when she jumped out of the car. She denied that except for
Aunty Ashika, her mother and other aunties hated Shahid because he was a digger operator when Ashika was a schoolteacher.
- Under re-examination, she admitted that her evidence that the vehicle turned to the left side was incorrect and that, when coming
from Sigatoka to Nadi, the beach would be on the right side. She could not escape when Shahid got out of the car because she was
lying on the seat, she was weak after being slapped and her thighs spread apart.
PW2 Luisa Tuirewa
- Luisa testified that on 13 September 2018, she boarded a taxi at the Yadua junction, and, at Waibogi junction, Emali also boarded the same taxi. They went towards
(Sigatoka) town when the taxi driver saw an Indian girl sitting on the roadside past Volivoli village. She and Emali got out to see
this Indian girl. One man, also from Yadua village by the name Rusi stopped by the roadside and asked if they could assist the Indian
girl because she feared men approaching her. When this girl saw them, she ran towards her and hugged her. The girl was shivering.
Rusi told her to wait at the roadside so that he could call the police.
- This Indian girl appeared scared that something big had happened to her like an accident. She asked what had happened. She said, that
whilst she was home, her uncle told her to accompany him to pick up one school student from school and on the way in the vehicle,
his uncle started kissing her mouth, neck, and chest area and started touching her private parts. After telling those words, the
Indian girl continued to hug her and repeatedly said that his uncle raped her.
- Because she was in a rush that day, she could not wait for Rusi to bring the police. She asked the taxi driver if they could drop
the girl at the police station on the way to town. At the police station, she handed the girl over to a woman police officer. She
saw the girl again yesterday when she visited the DPP’s office.
- Under cross-examination, Luisa said she heard the girl say that she was raped although those words are not reflected in the statement. The statement was not
read back to her, nor did she read it because she was in a hurry to go to town. If the statement states that it was read back to
her, she might have forgotten to mention in her statement that the girl was raped.
PW3 Dr. Ajesh Vigyan Singh
- In September 2018, doctor Singh was based at Sigatoka Hospital. She examined PK on 13 September 2018 and filled out a Medical Examination
Form which he tendered in evidence (PE1). His initial impression of the patient was that she was in a protective, secluded and fearful
state as if she had undergone a recent trauma, fearing for her life or her safety. She was in tears.
- His specific medical findings were that several areas of bruising, particularly on her back, mostly on the left side, and facial and
neck area on the left side were noted to be slightly tender on the palpation. He said on the left arm deltoid muscle (the upper third
portion of the left arm) there was superficial bruising, suggestive of restrain marks. These must have been due to forceful restraints
on that area causing superficial bruising. Different bruising pattern happens due to various reasons, such as blunt force trauma.
The restrain patterns would have bruising and small hemorrhage under the skin whereas a sharp laceration would suggest a cut or something
like that. It was more suggestive of a restrained pattern. He also noted superficial bruising on the left base of the neck. On the
left breast medial aspect, he noted a 2x2 cm bruise.
- Upon the perianal area examination and external orifice examination, he found no active bleeding. However, the labial and internal
vaginal walls were noted to be edematous (swelling) and erythema (redness). No hymen noted.
- The doctor’s professional opinion as to the cause of these injuries, given the bruising pattern and according to the erythema
pattern, could have been caused by blunt force trauma. The pattern particularly showed the restrain pattern on the left upper portion
of the body. The fresh injuries in the vaginal area are suggestive of forceful penetration or insertion. Other bruises and tenderness
on the rest of the body are restrain marks suggesting that the patient was held back without her consent when she was struggling.
- After being admitted to Sigatoka Hospital for two days, the patient was transferred to Lautoka Hospital for the patient’s well-being
because the pattern of injuries and the history of sexual assault was a red flag for medical professionals.
- Under cross-examination, the doctor agreed that, according to the history provided, one of her uncles, on false pretense, took her
by force to Sigatoka. The words ‘she was taken to the sand dunes’ were his interpretation because the incident had occurred
in the Yadua area. He found it more important to address the girl’s medical well-being rather than trying to get the exact
details of the history. A punch, a slap or being pressed against an object would be examples of blunt force trauma. Tenderness could
be caused by falling from a moving vehicle into the ground but not the bruising pattern. If a person falls from a moving vehicle,
the area of bruising would be much larger. The doctor ruled out the bruising on the neck, on the breast, and the side of the arm,
having been caused by a fall. The doctor disagreed with the proposition that if there were forceful penetration of a 13-year-old
girl by an adult male there would be bleeding. Hymen being present or absent does not indicate a person’s sexuality (virginity)
because approximately 20 per cent of all females, even those in pre-sexual age do not have hymen. His suggestion of penetration was
based on the presence of erythema and oedema and not on the absence of hymen. He excluded possibilities other than penetration.
- That is the case for Prosecution
Case for Defence
DW 1 Shahid Ali (The Accused)
- Shahid has been working as a Digger Operator for the past 8 years. He married Ashika Narayan in 2017 and, in 2022 she left home and
started living with her parents because of a made-up story. Her parents didn’t like his job because he had to go camping away
from home. In 2018 he was staying with her in-laws at Mataqe, Sigatoka. His wife Ashika is a schoolteacher at Korotogo Andhara Primary
School.
- On 13 September 2018, when he arrived home at around 1 p.m., his mother-in-law, his wife’s cousin, her uncle and aunty had come from
Suva. At around 1.30 p.m. he left home to drop his in-laws off to town for shopping. He returned home at around 2.15 p.m. After cleaning
his wife’s car, (Mazda Excellor 323), he went to pick his wife from school at around 3.45 p.m. As he was coming out, the complainant
asked him if she could go with him to town. He agreed and took her to town in his wife’s car. The complainant first went to
bring her shoes and the phone and was seated on the rear seat on the left side.
- When they reached Volivoli village, he had to pass three humps, and at the last hump, he heard the door open and saw the complainant
jump out of the car. He had no idea why she jumped out of the car. He thought she was leaning on the door and by mistake the door
got open and she fell off the moving car. By the time he saw her, she was rolling on the ground. He crossed the hump and parked the
car on the side. As soon as he approached her, she stood up and started to run towards Volivoli village. Her hair was messy, and
her clothes were full of grass. He tried to stop her but failed. He saw some Fijian boys coming from the front, and to be on his
safe side, he decided to move away and went back to his car. He thought those boys were going to punch him as she was running and
crying and if he followed her then they might be thinking that he must have done something wrong to her. From there, he went to pick
up his wife from school. He denied all the allegations made by the complainant in her evidence.
- He said Naqarai Beach is right beside his house about 100 to 120 meters away and a busy place as people come there for picnics. His
relationship with his in-laws was never good. They had a love marriage; all in-laws were against him and her parents never accepted
him because he is Muslim whereas Ashika is South Indian.
- Under cross-examination, Shahid agreed that the relatives of Ashika’s side attended his wedding and that he was residing with
his in-laws. He stayed there because of his wife since she was teaching there. He agreed that he had friendly conversations with
his in-laws when they arrived on 13 September 2018 and when he visited and stayed at the Complainant’s house in Nausori. He
consumed the meals prepared by his wife and mother-in-law. He later admitted that he was residing with his in-laws because they had
accepted him and had no grudges with him. He agreed that the photographs (Nos. 2-4) were of Naqarai beach near his house.
Evaluation / Analysis
- The case for the Prosecution is that the Accused on a false pretense took the Complainant to Naqarai Beach and, intending to commit
rape, he physically assaulted and had carnal knowledge of her.
- The Prosecution must prove on the first count beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused penetrated the vagina of the complainant without
her consent and that in doing so, he knew or was reckless that she was not consenting. To prove the second count, the Prosecution
must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused assaulted the Complainant with the intention to commit rape.
- The Defence does not deny that the Complainant was 13 years old at the time of the alleged incident and that she is his niece, being
related from his wife’s side. Therefore, the identity of the Accused is not an issue. He admits having driven the Complainant
in his wife’s car on the afternoon of 13 September 2018 and that she jumped off the vehicle at Volivoli village when it slowed
down at the humps.
- The Accused completely denies the two allegations. The case turns on who told the truth in Court. However, the overall burden is on
the Prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Prosecution substantially relies on the complainant’s testimony which it claims to be the truth. To support its assertion,
the Prosecution relies on the recent complaint evidence of Luisa Tuirewa and medical evidence of Doctor Singh who medically examined
the Complainant soon after the alleged incident.
- The Defence’s challenge to the credibility of the Complainant’s evidence is twofold. It says that she is not consistent
not only in her evidence but also with the conduct of a genuine rape victim. It was also argued that her evidence is implausible.
Let me deal with the Defence’s arguments most of them are associated with common myths and stereotypes of rape and rape victims.
- It was argued that the complainant had the opportunity to inform her mother (before the alleged rape) that she was under threat of
being raped. There is no dispute that she had a phone with her that evening. When the car turned towards the beach, she said she
was concerned and questioned the purpose of going there. The Accused indicated he was going to the beach to have a bath. Although
she disliked him going to the beach, it was too early in my opinion for her to assume that she was under threat of being raped. Real
such a threat would have been felt by her when the Accused pushed his seat back to come on top of her. By that time, the phone, according
to her, was not in her hand but somewhere on the seat. Even if it were, it would not have been possible for her to use a phone when
the Accused, in a shocking move, came on top of her.
- The Complainant tried to use the phone at the first available opportunity when the Accused, after committing the alleged rape, got
out of the car to put on his pants. She said the Accused snatched the phone and threw it onto the front seat preventing her from
making the call.
- It was also argued that the Complainant had an opportunity to escape by opening the rear door. Before the alleged rape, the Accused
had locked the doors. She said she had no idea how to unlock the door until the Accused himself unlocked it when he came to the back
seat. Even if she had known how to unlock it, it would have been futile for her to try to escape, given the car had been parked,
as the photographs show, in an isolated area.
- It is not disputed that she jumped out of the vehicle at Volivoli. She had grabbed the first available opportunity to escape when
the car slowed down at the second hump.
- It was also argued that her voice could have been heard at Uncle Sonu’s house had she been shouting at the top of her voice.
There is no credible evidence that Sonu’s house is somewhere close to the place where the alleged rape occurred. The photographs
confirm this place is isolated. Although the State Counsel, by showing the photographs to the Complainant, failed to get her to confirm
that they depict the place where the alleged rape occurred, it was Complainant’s evidence that she was taken to the place where
the rape occurred by the police. The photographs no doubt were taken when the Complainant pointed out that place to police officers.
- The Accused confirmed that the photographs (Nos. 2-4) were of Naqarai beach. His evidence that Naqarai Beach is right beside his
house, about 100 to 120 meters away and that it is a busy place is not consistent with what the photographs portray. Even if it is
a picnic place as he said, it is hardly possible that people will come there for a picnic on a weekday by that time. The Accused
had driven a considerable distance from Sonu’s house before coming to the beach. Therefore, her evidence that she yelled at
the top of her voice to be heard by nobody should be accepted.
- It was argued that the Complainant failed to complain to the first person she met. The Fijian man Rusi was the first person she met
after the incident. She admitted she did not complain to Rusi when he inquired about what had happened and why she looked like that.
She explained that she was scared to say anything to him as he, too, was a man (male). At the police station, one male police officer
was there. She was afraid of him as he was also a man. Then a Fijian lady asked for a female police officer. Luisa (PW2) confirmed
that Rusi sought her support because the Complainant feared the men who approached her. She also confirmed that she had to ask for
a female police officer at the police station because the Complainant feared talking to the male policeman.
- The Prosecution relies on Luisa’s evidence to prove that the Complainant made a recent complaint and thus her conduct is consistent
with that of a genuine rape victim and to negative her consent. The complainant’s evidence is that she told the Fijian lady
whom she met in Volivoli that her uncle had kissed her, touched her private part and other places, and he had also raped her. Luisa
happened to be the first female she had met after the incident. Luisa confirmed that she received the complaint from the Complainant
that his uncle kissed her mouth, neck, and chest area and started touching her private parts and raped her.
- The Defence contended that the Complainant had not complained to Luisa of rape because she was never raped. This contention was based
on the absence of the word ‘rape’ in Luisa’s statement to police. Luisa was sure that she had heard from the Complainant
that she was raped and that she told the police what she heard from the Complainant. I should accept her explanation of why the word
rape is not present in her statement. She said that the statement was not read back to her, nor did she read it because she was in
a hurry to go to town. She further said that if the statement states that it was read back to her, she might have forgotten to mention
in her statement that the girl was raped.
- Even if the Court were to accept that the Complainant had not spoken about being raped in her complaint to Luisa, that would not affect
the credibility of the complainant as her complaint contained what is required to be included in a recent complaint in a sexual case.
- In Senikarawa v State[1] the Court of Appeal set down the correct position of law vis-a-vis recent complaint evidence as follows:
[14] Evidence of recent complaint may be adduced to show the consistency of the conduct of the complainant and to negative consent.
Kory White v. R [1998] UKPC 38; [1999] AC 210 requires that both the complainant and the named person to whom the complaint was made must testify as to the terms of the complaint.
If the evidence of recent complaint is admitted then the jury should be directed that such complaint is not evidence of the facts
complained of and cannot be regarded as corroboration, but goes to the consistency of the conduct of the complainant with her evidence
given at the trial.
[15] The principle on which the evidence is admitted is to support and enhance the credibility of the complainant. The jury, in assessing
the truth of the complainant’s evidence, may take into account evidence as to the consistency between that evidence and evidence
of her contemporaneous complaint. It can be an aid to her credit (Spooner v. R [2004] EWCA Crim. 1320, Eng. Court of Appeal).
[16] Spooner also considered the degree of consistency required for the evidence of recent complaint. Thomas LJ said:
"The decision in each case as to whether it is sufficiently consistent for it to be admissible must depend on the facts. It is not
in our judgment necessary that the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence; it will, however, usually be necessary that
the complaint discloses evidence of material and relevant unlawful sexual conduct on the part of the defendant which could support
the credibility of the complainant. It is not, therefore, usually be necessary that the complaint describes the full extent of the
unlawful sexual conduct alleged by the complainant in the witness box, provided it is capable of supporting the credibility of the
complainant’s evidence given at the trial.
Differences may be accounted for by a variety of matters, but it is for the jury to assess these. For example, in cases of alleged
abuse (such as this) by a stepfather or other family member, it would be for the jury to consider whether the difference arises because,
as is known to happen on some occasions, the complainant cannot bring herself to disclose the full extent of the conduct alleged
against the defendant at the time of the contemporaneous complaint."
- In Raj v State[2] the Supreme Court expressed a similar sentiment:
[39] The complaint need 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. The judge should point
out inconsistencies. These he referred to in an earlier paragraph.
- After making the complaint to Luisa, the Complainant told the doctor and the police the full story of what had happened. I accept
that the complainant made a recent complaint which is consistent with the allegation of rape. I am satisfied the complainant’s
conduct is consistent with that of a genuine rape victim.
- The evidence shows that the Complainant was in a distressed condition after the alleged rape. Luisa said the Indian girl appeared
scared that something big had happened to her like an accident. Doctor Singh said that she was in a protective, secluded and fearful
state as if she had undergone a recent trauma, fearing for her life or her safety and that she was in tears. This conduct is consistent
with that of a rape victim.
- The Defence highlighted so-called inconsistencies in the evidence of the Complainant vis-a-vis her previous statements, which they say are material to assess the credibility of the Complainant. I am not convinced. None of them
concerns the trial issues and material enough to discredit her version. The Complainant was only 13 years old at the time of the
incident, and her statement had been recorded in a question-and-answer form. She may not have given the full details of the incident
unless the officer questioned her.
- The Defence Counsel used the history allegedly provided by the Complainant and recorded by the doctor in the medical report (PE1)
to show that the Complainant is not consistent in her evidence. I do not see any material inconsistency there either.
- Doctor Singh admitted that some parts of the history were based on his own assumptions. As opposed to witness statements made to police,
there is a problem when a history provided by a patient to a doctor is used to mark contradictions mainly for two reasons. Firstly,
unlike the statements made to the police, the statements made to a doctor are not adopted by the patient after reading them or being
read over and by signing. The present case is a classic example where the doctor had substituted the words ‘sand dunes’
on the assumption that the alleged incident must have happened there because that is the place where similar types of incidents used
to occur in the Yadua area. Secondly, as Dr Singh said, the doctors are not supposed to obtain and record full details of the allegation
except for a brief history. In any event, I do not see any material contradictions between what the Complainant is alleged to have
told the doctor and her evidence in Court.
- The Prosecution also relies on the expert opinion of Doctor Singh to prove the consistency of the version of the Complainant. I am
satisfied that the medical findings are consistent with the allegations of rape (forceful penetration) and assault albeit they do
not implicate the Accused.
- The Complainant said that the Accused forcefully got hold of both of her shoulders, forcefully spread her legs apart and tried to
make her lie down. He slapped her left face twice. He used one of his hands to cover her mouth.
- The external injuries the doctor had observed in the Complainant’s body correlate to what she said in her evidence. The doctor
found several areas of bruising, particularly on her back, mostly on the left side of the facial and neck area noted to be slightly
tender on the palpation. He said the left arm deltoid muscle had superficial bruising, suggestive of restrain marks. He opined that
these injuries must have been due to forceful restraints on that area. He ruled out the possibility of these injuries / medical conditions
having been caused when she jumped out of the vehicle.
- Dr Singh gave reasons for his opinion. Although a tenderness could be caused by a fall from a moving vehicle into the ground, the
bruising pattern and the area of bruising do not point to a fall. The doctor ruled out the bruising on the neck, on the breast, and
the side of the arm, having been caused by a fall.
- The medical findings of the perianal area and orifice examination are also constant with forceful sexual intercourse. Although the
doctor found no active bleeding, the labial and internal vaginal walls were noted to be edematous (swelling) and erythemous (redness).
No hymen was noted, but his opinion on penetration was not based on that but on the presence of erythema and oedema. These observations
made him exclude other possibilities and confirm his finding that she was forcefully penetrated.
- The Defence Counsel, in his written submission has argued that given the small space between the seats, the Accused can't fit within
there for him to have sexual intercourse with the Complainant in the manner she described in her evidence. I would disagree with
this argument. Before coming on top of her, the Accused had made her lie down and opened the left rear door to make both her legs
put outside. Then only he pulled her pants down, lifted her right leg and placed it on the armrest.
- I observed the demeanour of the Complainant. She was straightforward in her evidence. She answered the questions with confidence and
without any hesitation. Her demeanour is consistent with that of a genuine rape victim. I have no reason to reject her evidence.
- The evidence of the Defence is implausible and is not appealing to me. It appeared that the Accused was trying to save his skin. He
attempted to convince this Court that the relationship with his in-laws was not good, suggesting that this allegation was made up.
However, it was never put to the Complainant that the allegation was made up or that it was made up because of this alleged animosity.
The circumstances under which the complaint was made do not suggest that the allegation was made up.
- The Accused agreed that the relatives of his wife’s side attended his wedding and that he was residing with his in-laws ever
since they got married until they parted in 2022. He had stayed with his in -laws almost four years even after this allegation was
mounted. He agreed that he had friendly conversations with his in-laws when they arrived on 13 September 2018 and also when he visited
and stayed at the Complainant’s house in Nausori. He later admitted that he was residing with his in-laws because they had
accepted him and had no grudges with him.
- He could not explain why the Complainant jumped out of the vehicle and why he escaped without helping his niece (Complainant) when
he saw the youth approaching him in Volivoli. He had no reason to fear if he had done no wrong to the Complainant. I am sure he got
scared and escaped because he was guilty. There is no reason for her to cry and run away from the Accused if he had done no wrong
to her. His evidence that she must have been leaning on the door and by mistake, the door got open, and she must have fallen off
the moving car is based on speculation. This proposition was never put to the Complainant. It is not possible that the door would
open automatically for her to fall when the car already slowed down at the first hump.
- For these reasons, I would reject the evidence of the Defence. It failed to create any doubt in the version of events of the Prosecution’s
case.
- There is ample evidence that the Accused penetrated the vagina of the Complainant without her consent. He had good reasons to believe,
and he knew that the Complainant was not consenting. The elements of Rape are satisfied. I am sure the Accused assaulted the Complainant
with the intention of committing rape. The elements of the 2nd count are also satisfied.
- The Prosecution proved both charges beyond reasonable doubt. I find the Accused guilty on each count. The Accused is convicted accordingly.
Aruna Aluthge
Judge
21 October 2024
Solicitors
Officer of Director of Public Prosecutions for State
Iqbal Khan and Associates for Defence
[1] [2006] FJCA 25; (24 March 2006)
[2] [2014] FJSC 12; (20 August 2014)
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2024/631.html