State v Hussein [2015] FJMC 118; Criminal Case 04.2015 (2 October 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT NABOUWALU
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 4 of 2015

STATE

v

FAIZUL HUSSEIN

Prosecution : Inspector Sogari
Accused : In Person

Judgment : 2 October 2015

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused, Faizul Hussein is charged with one count of Indecently Insulting and Annoying any Person, contrary to section 213(1)(a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

2. The particulars of the offence is that on the 25th day of October 2014, at Nasarawaqa in the Northern Division with intend to insult the modesty of Intiaz Javed Hussein, uttered the words "maichod" meaning mother fucker, "kutta" meaning dog and "dogla" meaning bastard, intending that such words shall be heard by the said Intiaz Javed Hussein.

3. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge on 6 March 2015, and the case proceeded for hearing on 13 July 2015.

4. At the trial, the Prosecution called three civilian witnesses and one Police Officer. The Accused is the only witness for the Defence. The caution interview and the charge statement were tendered by consent.

5. The Accused and the Victim are neighbours at Nasarawaqa, Bua. The water pipe is always an issue between these two neighbours as the Accused water meter is located closed to if not in the compound of the Victim. According to the Victim, on 25 October 2014, sometimes between 6pm to 6.30pm, the accused swore at him, his father, mother and brother. The accused uttered the word "maichod" meaning "mother fucker". The accused also said "if you drank your mother's milk then you come and talk to me". The Victim in his evidence stated that he felt ashamed and angry when the accused uttered those words but he did not do anything and later reported the matter to the Police on the next day. Further, according to the Victim, the accused uttered those swear words when he told the accused not to pull out the pipe and he can go and check the main water catchment. The Victim's family members were sitting at their verandah when the accused uttered those swear words. The Victim identify the accused sitting in the accused dock.

6. The victim's father also gave evidence on oath and confirmed that the accused uttered the word "maichod" and "if you drank your mother's milk then come". The victim's brother also gave evidence and was sitting at their verandah and heard the accused swearing and uttered the word "maichod". The Accused deny the allegation in the caution interview. Both the victim's father and brother identified the Accused at the dock.

7. According to the particulars of offence, the accused uttered the words "maichod", "kutta", and "dogla". The evidence adduce by the three civilian witnesses called by the Prosecution shows that the accused uttered only one word and that is "maichod". Before proceeding further, I remind myself whether existence or proven of one word uttered by the Accused is sufficient for the charge and for the case to be pursued. After careful consideration, I find that the proven of one word is sufficient to pursue the case.

8. The Prosecution's evidence was not rebutted or discredited by the defence. The Accused in his evidence on oath stated that he did not like what happened to his son when he was chased away by the victim's family and he was not angry. He did not admit nor deny the allegation but stated that the victim swore at him and he reported the matter to the Police.

9. I noted that there is a cross report led to a cross charge, where the Accused in this case was the victim in Criminal Case No. 9 of 2015. I can recall that I had already delivered a judgment on that other case. That earlier judgment will not influence my judgment in this case and I will determine the present case on its own merit and based on the evidence adduced during the trial.

10. As already stated earlier, the evidence of the prosecution was not rebutted or discredited during cross examination or by the defence. I have observed the demeanour of the witnesses including the Accused and I find the Prosecution witnesses are credible witnesses.

11. The standard of prove in criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt and the burden is on the Prosecution. In assessing and examining the evidence adduced during the trial, I find that the Prosecution has proven it case beyond reasonable doubt.

12. In my judgment, I find the Accused guilty as charged and convict the Accused accordingly.

28 days to appeal

Cama M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE