State v Ranadi [2012] FJMC 351; Criminal Case 151.2012 (27 December 2012)

THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF NAVUA
Criminal Case : 151/2012

STATE

VS

LOSANA RANADI

For Prosecution : Sgt. Lenaitasi
For Accused : In person

Date of hearing : 11 Dec 2012
Date of judgment : 27 Dec 2012

JUDGMENT

[1] The accused is charged for the offence of Annoying Person contrary to Sec 213(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree. The charge reads as follows.

Statement of Offence [a]

INDECENTLY ANNOYING PERSON – Contrary to Section 213(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence [b]

Losana Randi, on the 13th day of April 2012, at Wainadoi, Navua in the Central Division, with intent to insult the modesty of EMMA MAKEKULA, uttered words such as " magaitinamu", meaning " Mothers vagina", intending that such words shall be heard by the said Ema Marekula. .

[2] The accused pleaded not guilty on 05 July 2012 and the hearing was on 11 Dec 2012. The prosecution called 03 witnesses and the accused gave evidence on oath. She also called another witness.

SUMMARAY OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION CASE

[3] The prosecution called following witnesses.

Ema Marekula (PW1) – The complainant in this case. She said on 13 April 2012 she was at her home with her mother in law and her niece came to buy some fish.. After she got them she went and on her way back saw the PW1 laughing with her mother in law. She thought it was about her and went and told the accused. Then she came and called the PW1. She said "maichold".

[4] The accused cross examined the PW1. In cross examination the PW1 denied swearing at the accused and said at that time her mother in law and brother were there.

[5] Salesh Lata (PW2) – The mother in law of the PW1. She said on that day she heard the accused coming to her house and calling the PW1. The PW1 went to doorstep and then the accused started swearing at her in Hindi using words like "magaitnamu"

[6] In cross examination the PW2 stated she heard the words spoken to the PW1.

[7] WPC Maria (PW3) – The officer who conducted the interview. Through her the interview was marked as EX-01 and charge statement was marked as EX-02.

[8] Thereafter the prosecution closed their case. This court was satisfied about the prosecution's evidence and the accused was explained about following rights.

[a] To give evidence on oath

[b] To call other witnesses

[c] To remain silent.

[9] The accused informed that she wanted to give sworn evidence and also to call other witnesses.

DEFENCE CASE

[10] Losani Randi (Accused) – She said on that day her niece went to collect fish and on her way back saw the PW1 and PW2 laughing. The niece told that to the accused but she did not do anything. Later her husband came and told her about that and on the next day she went to ask about that.

[11] In cross examination as well as re-examination the accused said she did not meet the PW1 on that day and denied swearing at her.

[12] Navin (DW2) - The husband of the accused. He said on that day he met the PW1 and she told him the accused was passing bad remarks about her. The DW2 told that to her wife and she went to ask about that.

[13] In cross examination the DW2 said when he told that to the accused she was angry and went to meet the PW1. The defence did not call any other witnesses and also closed their case.

THE LAW
[14] The accused is charged with the offence of Annoying Person. The relevant section reads as follows.

"A person commits a summary offence if he or she, intending to insult the modesty of any person Utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, Intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by the other person"

[15] Considering the facts in this case the prosecution has to prove the following facts in this case.

[a] The accused intending to insult the modesty of the PW1

[b] Utters the swearing words

[c] Intending that such word shall be heard by the PW1

[16] The Sec 57(1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009 impose the prosecution with the legal burden of proving every element of the offence and Sec 58(1) of the same Decree says the burden must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt. This is in line with what was emphasised in the landmark case of Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462. The Viscount Sankey LC stated that 'no matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused, is part of the common law".

[17] In Miller v Minister Of Pension [1947] 2 AER Lord Denning explained the 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' as follows. 'That degree is well settled It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability . Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of the doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favor , which can be dismissed with the sentence " of course it is possible but not in the least probable", the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.'

[18] Therefore the burden of proof of the accused person's guilt beyond reasonable doubts lies with the prosecution in this case. If the evidence creates any doubt, this should be given to the accused.
[19] Keeping in mind the above principles now I will closely examine the evidence given by both parties.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE
[20] I find that there are two different versions before me in this case. The prosecution's witnesses stated on that day the accused came to the PW1's house and swore at her. The accused denied swearing and also meeting her on that day.

[21] For the following reasons this court is prepared to accept the prosecution's version.

[a ] The PW1's evidence was corroborated by the PW2.

[b] The accused was given the chance to cross examine the prosecution's witnesses but she failed to raise a doubt about the evidence during the cross examination or through her own evidence.

[c] The court is impressed with the main witnesses for the prosecution. They were clear and confident giving evidence whilst the accused was evasive.

[d] The accused said she did not meet the PW1 on that day. But this is contradicted by her own witness (DW2) who said after he told her about the allegations by the Pw1 she got angry and went to meet her on that day. Therefore accused is not truthful in the court.

CONCLUSION

[22] Based on the above reasons the court decides that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed this offence.

[23] Therefore I find the accused guilty for Indecently Annoying Person and convict her for that offence.

[24] 28 days to appeal.

27/12/2012

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate