State v Prakash [2013] FJMC 220; Criminal Case 346.2010 (30 May 2013)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF FIJI
AT NAVUA

Criminal Case : 346/2010

STATE

VS

RATINESH PRAKASH

For Prosecution : Sgt. Lenitasi
For Accused : Mr. Singh

Judgment

[1] The accused is charged with the offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to section 275 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

[2] It was alleged that on 07 Nov 2010 at Alta Raiwaqa, Navua the accused assaulted Bal Karan causing him injuries.

[3] The accused pleaded not guilty for the offence and the hearing was conducted on 18 April 2013.

[4] The prosecution called 03 witnesses and for the defence accused gave sworn evidence. Only the defence opted to file closing submission which they filed on ......

Summary of Evidence

[5] PW1, Bal Karan was the complainant in this case. He said on 07 Nov 2010 while he was going to his home the accused with his father assaulted him. They did not give any reason for that and kept on assaulting. Later he was taken to Master Jayram's house and after both accused left the place he was released from the place. PW1's brother took him to his home and later the witness reported the matter to police and went to hospital. The medical report was identified by PW1 and marked as EX-01.

[6] In cross examination PW1 said he recognized the accused and his father and they both assaulted him.

[7] Mr. Shrama was second witness and he stated on that day he was in a gathering in a house and heard someone shouting. Later he saw the accused holding PW1 and he was bleeding from his head. When pw2 asked the reason they told the accused was hiding near Rajesh's house.

[8] PW3 was Vijayakumar and he saw the accused with his father holding PW1 and at that time PW1 was bleeding. The victim told him that they had assaulted him and answering to the question by defence counsel again said both were holding PW1.

[9] By consent the accused's caution statement was marked as EX-02 and charge statement was tendered as EX-03. The prosecution did not call any other witnesses and closed their case thereafter. The accused was given his rights and he opted to give sworn evidence.

[10] The accused said that on that day he was with his father and saw someone near the Rajesh's house trying to pull something out from the house. They shouted and PW1 started to run whereas his father threw a stone at him. Pw1 fell down and they took him to Master Jayram's house. The accused also said he did not assault PW1 on that day.

[11] In cross examination the accused denied running after PW1 or assaulting him. The defence also did not wish to call any other witnesses and closed their case too.

The Law

[12] The accused is charged with the offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to section 275 of the Crimes Decree. Section 275 states:-

A person commits a summary offence if he or she commits an assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

[13] Section 57 of the Crimes Decree has imposed the prosecution with burden of proving every element of the offence.

[14] Based on the facts in this case the elements the prosecution needs to prove are:-

[a] The accused

[b] Assaulted PW1

[c] Causing injuries.

[15] Section 58 (2) of the Crimes Decree states that this burden must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. This is in line with the famous dictum in Woolmington V DPP [1935] A.C. 462 where it was held 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."

Analysis of Evidence

[16] PW1 in his evidence said he was assaulted by the accused and his father. The medical report shows that the accused got injuries from the assault. PW2 and PW3 both saw the accused holding PW1. PW1 told PW3 also that the accused assaulted him.

[17] The defence rejected assaulting PW1 and said at that time he was hiding near a house.

[18] I have considered all the evidence as well as the demeanor of the parties in this case. From these I accept the version presented by the prosecution. The defence failed to raise doubt about PW1's evidence through cross examination or through the accused's sworn evidence.

[19] For the reasons set down in above paragraphs I believe the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed this offence.

[20] Therefore I find the accused guilty for the offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to section 275 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009 and convict him accordingly.

[21] 28 days to appeal.

30 May 2013

H.S.P.Somaratne

Resident Magistrate