State v Sudhakar [2014] FJMC 51; Criminal Case 1513.2008 (31 March 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
Criminal Case No. 1513/2008

STATE

VS

STANLEY SANJAY SUDHAKAR

For Prosecution : PC Yasin
For Accused : In person

Date of Hearing : 21st February and 24th March 2014
Date of Judgment : 31st March 2014

Judgment

[1] The accused is charged with following offence in this Court.

FOUND IN POSSESSION OF ILLICIT DRUGS: Contrary to Section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act No. 3 of 2004.

Particulars of Offence

STANLEY SANJAY SUDHAKAR, on the 4th day of May 2008 at Samabula in the Central Division, was in possession of 97.1 grams of Indian hemp, an illicit drug.

[2] The accused waived right to counsel and pleaded not guilty to the charge. Before the trial as the accused challenged his caution statement and the charge statement a voir dire hearing was conducted and the Court decided that the statements to admissible as evidence.

[3] The trial proper was conducted on 24/03/2014 in which 04 police officers gave evidence for the prosecution and for the defence was given his rights and he opted to remain silent.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
[4] PW1, Sgt Nute said that on 04/05/2008 the police received information and conducted a search on the premises of the accused. PW1 found a red stool inside the compound and inside the stool found dried leaves believed to be Indian Hemp in a ice cream container. PW1 identified the Red stool and the dried leaves in the Court. In cross examination PW1 said they received the information through 911 and based on that discoveries were made.

[5] The second witness Mansoor Ali was the Crime officer for this case and appointed PC Vijay as the IO. In cross examination the witness said there was no need for a search warrant as the premises was already investigated for another crime. He also identified the red stool and the dried leaves.

[6] The third witness was Sgt Vijay who conducted the caution interview of the accused. He was also in possession of the drugs which he took to Koronivia Research Center for analysis. The accused did not cross examine this witness. Through this witness followings were tendered as exhibits.

Red stool- P 1

Drugs -P2

Report from Research Center-P3

Caution statement –P4

[7] The last witness for the Prosecution was WPC Topaz the charging officer and she tendered the charge statement as P-05.The prosecution closed their case after calling this witness and after reviewing the evidence the Court was satisfied about the prosecution case and the accused was given his rights pursuant to section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Decree. The accused informed the Court that he wanted to remain silent.

THE LAW
[8] In Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 it was held that

“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt, subject [to the qualification involving the defence of insanity and to any statutory exception]. If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether [the offence was committed by him], the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained” (per Viscount Sankey L.C. at pp. 481-482).

[9] The standard of proof where the judge has to decide an issue of fact in a criminal case where the burden of proof is on the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt (ARCHBOLD CRIMINAL PLEADING , EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE 2010 page 542).

[10] In STATE v WASEROMA KOROI HAC 399 OF 2012 His Lordship Justice Madigan in his summing up defined proof beyond reasonable doubt in the following manner.

“The burden of proving the case against this accused is on the Prosecution and how do they do that? By making you sure of it. Nothing less will do. This is what is sometimes called proof beyond reasonable doubt. If you have any doubt then that must be given to the accused and you will find him not guilty – that doubt must be a reasonable one however, not just some fanciful doubt. The accused does not have to prove anything to you. “

[11] The accused is charged with one count of Found in possesof illicit&#cit drug

[12] Section 5(a) of the Act pro :

(a)) acqu acquires,ires, supplies, possesses, produces, manufactures, cultivates, uses or administers an illicit drug"

[13] In State v Balaggan [2012] FJHC 1143; HAC049.11 (31 May 2012) His Lordship Justice Goundar said

"In order to prove the offence o0;found in possessionssion of&#1licit&icit drug, the prosecution lead lead evidence which satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt the following elements:

1. That the accused was in possession;
<2.
&0;Of a160;an illicitdrug;

3. b>3. Without lawful authority."

ANALSIS OF THE EVIDE/u>
[14] Police witnesses called by the prosecution described how they found the drhe dried leaves inside the Red stool. This stool was inside the compound of the accused. The report from the Research center (P3) confirmed the leaves are Indian Hemp of 97.1 grams. I am satisfied that these evidence are sufficient to prove the case for prosecution.

[15] The accused was given the option and he elected to remain silent. This is his right and I would not comment about that

[16] The prosecution tendered the caution statement and charge statement of the accused as prosecution exhibits (P1 and P2). In his caution statement the accused admitted the red stool belonged to him and in that he kept the Indian Hemp. In his charge statement also admitted that the drugs were for his personal use.

[17] Not surprisingly before the trial the accused challenged the admissibility of the above statements on the ground of oppression and a voir dire was conducted about that. This Court on 21/02/2014 decided that the accused had given both statements voluntarily and therefore admissible in the trial proper.

[18] In State V Josefa Caku HAC 051/2012 in his summing up His Lordship justice Kumararatnam observed :

"The caution interview statement of the accused person is in evidence. What an accused says in his caution interview is evidence against him."

[19] The accused has admitted in his caution statement and the charge statement that he had the Indian Hemp in his possession for his personal use. Based on these statements as well as the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses I am satisfied that the prosecution has managed to prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt.

[20] Therefore I find the accused guilty for this offence and convict him accordingly.

[21] Since this court is exercising the extended jurisdiction of the High Court in your case, you may appeal against this sentence within 30 days with leave to the Court of Appeal.

31st March 2014

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva