State v Ali [2006] FJMC 16; Criminal Case No 432 of 2006 (7 August 2006)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT NAVUA

Criminal Case No. 432 of 2006

STATE

V

MASUM ALI f/n Nadir Ali

Prosecution: Insp. Gosai
Defence: Mr. T Sharma

JUDGMENT

The accused has been charged for damaging property and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.

Particulars are on 9th February 2006 the accused willfully and unlawfully damaged one shirt and a vest valued at $15 property of Hira Sami Naidu.

On the same date accused assaulted Hira Sami Naidu occasioning him actual bodily harm. Prosecution evidence is both accused and complainant are peanut sellers at the Suva bus station. Complainant said he was bumped into by the accused in the morning of 9/2/06. His peanuts fell. He picked up the peanuts and was sworn at by the accused. He reported the matter to police. It was settled at the post. Around 7pm that night accused swore at complainant and warned him to see the fun at night. Accused held the complainant by his collar and his clothes were torn. He threw a punch and the complainant also punched him in defence.

The matter was reported to police. Complainant had slight injury to his chest. He demonstrated in court how his collar was held and his right side of chest was pointed to by the complainant. The torn vest and shirt were tendered as exhibits.

He said no one was at stand except these two. The accused in defence says he was bumped into by the complainant. His peanuts fell to ground. Complainant challenged him to a fight and punched his left eye. He was medically examined. Police charged them both. He said people were at station. Another peanut seller was with him.

He called the witness who said he was talking to accused around 7 pm that night. The complainant challenged accused to a fight. He punched the eye of accused who fell to ground. The complainant ran towards the police post to report. He didn’t see accused do anything or tear his clothes that night. He said he was not on talking terms with the complainant.

I have considered whole of the evidence.

The complainant in this case did not appear to be a credible witness. He pointed to his right side of chest when asked if injury but later produced medical report which showed injury to left chest. He then changed his evidence.

Also the demonstration given by him of the fight showed accused held him by collar to his front but only his pocket was torn from one side. If both hands are on collar how the pocket was torn so neatly was incredible.

Also the vest was torn from middle in a straight line to the bottom. It looked as if it was a straight cut....and tear rather than torn in a scuffle or in anger.

Demonstration by complainant showed how the shirt was pulled by accused.

However, no buttons were broken or torn anywhere except the pocket. That too, with precise accuracy from one edge downwards.

I find the complainant’s evidence difficult to accept and suspicious.

The prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is therefore acquitted.

Dated this on the 7th day of August 2006.

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE