State v Macedru [2014] FJMC 59; Criminal Case 1334.2009 (15 April 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
Criminal case: 1334/2009

STATE

V

SAMUELA MACEDRU

PC Josua for the Prosecution
MS. Ratidara (Legal Aid ) for the Accused

RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER

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

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: contrary to Section 293(1) (b) of the Penal Code, Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

Samuela Macedru and another on the 3rd day of October 2009 at Milverton Road, Raiwai, Suva in the Central Division robbed RAJNEEL Kumar of Nokia mobile phone valued at $600.00 and cash $40.00 and immediately before such robbery did use personal violence to the said RAJNEEL KUMAR.

[2] The State closed their case on 11th March 2013 after calling 02 witnesses. After that the learned counsel for the accused made an application for a 'no case to answer' pursuant to section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree No.43of 2009.

[3] The section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree section provides :

"if at the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him or her to make a defence, the court shall dismiss the case and shall acquit the accused".

[4] In Rohit Ram Latchan v The State Criminal Action No 32 of 1996 the Court of Appeal observed :

"A submission that there is no case to answer may properly be made and upheld:

(a) When there has been no evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged offence.

(b) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it".

[5] In Shabib v The State [2005] FJHC 95; HAA0022J.2005S (28 April 2005) Her Ladyship Madam Justice Shameem said:

"In the Magistrates' Court both tests apply. So the Magistrate must ask himself or herself firstly whether there is relevant and admissible evidence implicating the accused in respect of each element of the offence,

And second whether on the prosecution case, taken at its highest, a reasonable tribunal could convict. In considering the prosecution case at its highest, there can be no doubt at all that where the evidence is entirely discredited, form no matter which angle one looks at it, a court can uphold a submission of no case. However, where a possible view of the evidence might lead the court to convict, the case should proceed to the defence case".

[6] In this case the accused is charged one count of Robbery with Violence contrary to section 293(1) (b) of the Penal Code. The elements in this offence are;

1. The accused
   
2. Robs the complainant and
   

100. At the time of or immediately before or after such robbery, uses or threatens to use any personal violence to any person.
     

[7] The learned counsel submitted that the there is not sufficient evidence to prove the essential element of the offence (identity of the accused) and the evidence is not reliable.

[8] The complainant in his evidence identified the accused in the Court and said he has seen him before from the neighborhood. Also he said the accused assaulted him and robbed some items. At this stage this is sufficient for me call the defence. Therefore I find that there is a case against the accused and dismiss this application.

15th April 2014

H. S. P. Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva