State v Reddy [2007] FJMC 12; Criminal Case No 1656 of 2006 (25 May 2007)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No. 1656 of 2006

STATE

V

VINOD REDDY s/o Anmale Reddy

Before Ajmal Gulab Khan Esq

Date of Hearing: 14/05/07
Date of Judgment: 25/05/07

Prosecution: Insp. S. Gosai
Accused: Person.

JUDGMENT

The accused has been charged for Wrongful Confinement Contrary to S 253 of the Penal Code.

Particulars are Vinod Reddy on 19th July 2006 knowingly and wrongfully confined Sashi Kanta.

The facts are not in dispute. The parties lived in a de-facto relationship at Wailea Street, Vatuwaqa. The accused didn’t like the complainant going out of house while he was away. On 19th July 2006 accused went out to work at 7 am. He locked the front door with a padlock. The complainant was confined to the house. The house has no back door but the bathroom has an outlet which leads to the landlady’s house. This could be opened from the house of the landlady only.

The complainant around 10 am managed to get attention of neighbours who called police. Through the help of the land lady, the police entered the house of the accused and got the complainant out. Matter was reported and accused charged.

In his defence the accused said he locked the front door at the request of the complainant.

The complainant in Court turned hostile and agreed asking accused to lock the door. However, she later informed court that her husband was unhappy about her ex husband coming to the house and this was not appreciated by the accused. I accept her evidence and it’s not uncommon for a witness to protect her de-facto with whom she presently lives. She is also expecting his baby in due course. Despite minor discrepancies in her statement and evidence I accept she was locked in deliberately and not by her consent.

I find it as a fact that the accused deliberately and wrongfully tried to keep her inside the house so she would not be able to see anyone while he was at work.

It was not an act where the complainant had been there by her consent. If so, she won’t have been crying and trying to attract attention of police officer and neighbours from the windows of the house.

The Prosecution evidence is accepted.

I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved its case.

The accused is found guilty as charged.

Dated this 25th day of May 2007.

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE