State v Lata [2015] FJMC 126; Criminal Case 13.2015 (12 November 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT NABOUWALU
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 13 of 2015

STATE

V

HEM LATA

Prosecution: PC Monish
Accused: In Person

Judgment: 12 November 2015

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused, Hem Lata is charged with one count of Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm, contrary to section 275 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009. The particulars of the offence is that, on 28th day of October 2014, at Nabouwalu, in the Northern Division, assaulted Shoreen Lata, thereby occasioning her actual bodily harm.

2. Section 275 of the Crimes Decree 2009 provides – "A person commits a summary offence if he or she commits an assault occasioning actual bodily harm."

3. The charge was put to the Accused on 28 May 2015, where the Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded for hearing on 17 September 2015.

4. The Prosecution called five witnesses which consist of the Police Investigating Officer, Medical Officer who examined the victim, the victim and two other civilian witnesses. The Accused is the only witness for the defence.

5. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and the onus is on the Prosecution.

6. The victim Shoreen Lata in her evidence stated that she was assaulted by the Accused at the Valelevu Sanatan Temple on 28 October 2014. In her evidence, the Accused punched her and scratched her face and neck, hit her left shoulder and strangle her neck. The Prosecution witnesses two and five Kushma Wati and Hans Raj both confirmed the assault on that day. The third Prosecution witness, Doctor Mere who examined the victim confirms the Medical Report is for the victim and tendered as Prosecution Exhibit 1. She confirms her medical finding and the injuries on the victim which consist of multiple scratch mark caused by finger nail. It is also clear from the second and fifth witnesses that the Accused and the Victim always fight in the temple.

7. The Accused on her evidence confirmed that she have an ongoing argument with the victim. She denied assaulting the victim. Her evidence is that it was the victim who assaulted her first and she was only pushing the victim away as she wants to free herself.

8. In assessing the evidence adduced at the trial, I find that the Prosecution evidence are reliable. The evidence of the victim, and the other two civilian witnesses who were present at the incident confirms the assault. The Medical Report also confirms the injury received by the victim as a result of the assault from the Accused.

9. I find that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

10. In my judgment, I find the Accused guilty as charged and the Accused is convicted accordingly.

28 days to appeal

C. M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE