State v Singh [2011] FJMC 182; Traffic Case 6273.2010 (9 October 2011)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF NASINU

TRAFFIC CASE NO.6273/2010

STATE

-v-

JAGAT SINGH

Police Constable Ravi for the State
Accused Present and appeared in person

Judgment

[1] The accused is charged with the following offence. The charge read as follows;

CHARGE

Statement of offence (a)

[2] FAILURE TO USE SEAT BELT: Contrary to Regulation 77 (1) (a) and 87 of Land Transport (Traffic) Regulation 2000.

Particulars of offence (b)

[3] JAGAT SINGH on 19/04/10 at Suva in the Central Division drove a motor vehicle registration number CO 865 at Grantham Road, Nabua failed to use seat belt when such is provided.

[4] This case was heard on 03rd July 2012 and case was fixed for judgement today.

Summary of evidence

[5] At the trial, prosecution called one witness to prove the charge.

[6] PW 1-PC 4154 Sanjay Singh; He said that he has been working for Fiji police for 6 years. He is based in Nabua, Highway Patrol. He said on 19th April 2010 around 5.10 pm he was patrolling at Grantham Road. The witness said then he saw the accused was not wearing seat belts just near 2.5 metres. He drove a truck. Then he issued a TIN.

[7] In cross examination the accused suggested that he was wearing seat belt at that time which the witness denied. He said when he was giving the TIN the accused wore the seat belt. The accused further suggested that trucks did not get shoulder seat belts and he was wearing waist seat belts which cannot be seen from outside. But this suggestion also denied by the witness.

[8] Then, prosecution closed the evidence and court held there is a case to answer. Then, right to defend the case was given to the accused. The accused opted to give sworn evidence.

[9] DW1: Jagat Singh: the accused said at particular time the accused was wearing a seat belt. He drove a 22 wheeler truck and it only has waist seat belts not shoulder seat belt. He said the booking officer was unable to saw the waist seat belt that he was wearing. He said that he opened the door and showed it to the booking officer. The booking officer said the TIN has already issued it is to be cancelled by the court. The accused said the 22 wheeler trucks do not have shoulder seat belts it has only waist seat belts.

[10] In cross examination the accused said he has been driving for 28 years. The accused said the vehicle number was CO-865. He said that new trucks get seat belts but this is an old one.

[11] Burden lies on the prosecution to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt. In State v Tuiloa [2008] FJHC 251; HAC003.2007 (24 June 2008) Justice Jocelynne A. Scutt in Her Ladyship's summing up said;

"The question then is what the standard of proof is. That is, when the onus rests on the State as it does here and generally in criminal trials, what is the standard the State must meet? The State must prove all the necessary ingredients of the charge.... beyond reasonable . Proof roof beyond rable doubt means eans what is. You. You must be sure; you must be satisfied of guilt, before you caness anion about it. Only if you are sure, if you arou are satisfied beyond reasonable doubletublet of guilt, then it is your duty to say so. If you are not sure, not satisfied beyond a reasonaoubt, then you myou must give your opinion that the accused is not guilty. This assessment, this determination, rests with you – with each of you – upon your individual ament of the evidence." (Emphasises is mine)

[12] As Lord Devlin mentioned in the Privy Council in Jayasena v. The Queen reported in 72 New Law Reports 313 (Sri Lanka)

"A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.

[13] Therefore, if the court or prudent man thinks the accused is guilty for offence in considering all the facts placed before them without any reasonable doubt, then charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be convicted as per charged. If the court or prudent man thinks that the accused is not guilty to the offence in considering all the facts placed before them, then the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If evidence creates some reasonable doubt in mind of court or prudent man, the benefit of doubt must be given to accused and accused should be acquitted and discharged from the proceedings. This is the golden rule of criminal law and "one who says the fact exists should prove that fact no burden lies on one who denies it- as legal maxim "Ex qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio". On the other hand court should consider what actually happened and not what adduced by witnesses- as legal maxim "In traditionibus scruptorum non quod dictum est sed qudogestum est inspicitur" have to be noted.

[14] Now I evaluate the evidence adduced before me. The prosecution witness said that the accused did not wear the seat belt. But the accused said he wore seat belt but the officer did not see it. The accused said this is an old truck it had only waist belts. The prosecution did not suggest that the accused was lying. The prosecution only called single witness. Also the court can rely on single witness if it is satisfied by his evidence. But this is word against word. The accused said he wore the waist seat belt. Truck is a bit higher vehicle than other vehicles. The witness said he saw it clearly within 2.5 metres. It is unbelievable how witness saw this since vehicle in motion and higher than others. Thus doubt creates. I therefore hold that the prosecution has not proved its charges beyond reasonable doubts. I give benefit of the doubt to the accused.

[17] The accused is acquitted and discharged.

[18] On 09th October 2011, at Nasinu, Fiji Islands

Sumudu Premachandra
Resident Magistrate- Nasinu