State v Mafutuna [2013] FJMC 409; Criminal Case 1842.2012 (25 November 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
IN THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 604/10

State

V

Aminio Rokotuivuna Mafutuna

Prosecution: Mr R Prakash (DPP's)
Accused: Present – Ms Ratidara

Judgment

Introduction

Aminio Rokotuivuna Mafutuna is charged with 2 counts of defilement of girl between 13 years and 16 years, contrary to Section 156 (a) of the Penal Code.

The Standard and Burden of Proof

The onus in this case, as is with all criminal cases is on the prosecution to prove the case and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions, in commenting on the proof beyond reasonable doubt stated: "it need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of 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 favour, 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."

The Evidence

The prosecution called 2 witnesses. The accused gave sworn evidence and called one other witness. The Court has noted all the evidence that was given in Court and the documents that were tendered.

Analysis of Evidence in Relation to the Law

This Court has analysed all the evidence given by all the witnesses in this case. The onus was on the prosecution to prove the elements of the offences the accused was charged with.

The Court is satisfied on the evidence before it that the complainant was of the age below 16 years and above the age of 13 at the time of the alleged offences or the 2 counts. For the 1st count on the evidence adduced before it this Court has reasonable doubts whether the accused had knowledge the age of the complainant or that the complainant told the accused of her correct age.

For the 2nd Count, sometime around the specified dates the accused was told the age of the complainant by the father of the accused and he despite being told by the father of the complainant of her age had sex with the complainant. The accused admitted in Court that he was told the age of the complainant by her father. The point raised by the accused that he did not believe the father is his version as the Court finds that he is trying to save himself> The court does not believe him as at the same time he states that he confronted the complainant as she lied to him about her age. So the fact is that when he knew the correct age of the complainant he confronted her about her lies about her age. Once he came to know of her age he should not then have had sex with the complainant. Despite knowing her age and that she was below 16 years of age the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant. For the 2nd count this court finds the accused guilty.

Count 1 – Not Guilty.
Count 2 – Guilty.

This Court will now hear the accused's mitigation.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate

28th November 2013.