IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 155 of 2013

STATE

v

MOHAMMED SHAMEEM

Prosecution : PC Monish
Accused : Ms Dunn. S

Judgment : 14 August 2015

JUDGMENT

1.	The Accused, Mohammed Shameem is charged with one count of Receiving, contrary to section 306(1) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009. 
 
2.	According to the particulars of the offence, the Accused on the 9th day of March 2013, at Labasa, in the Northern Division, dishonestly received stolen property namely bullock knowing or believing the same to be stolen. 

3.	The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge on 25 September 2013, and the case was set for hearing on 27 May 2015 and the hearing proceeded accordingly.
4.	The Prosecution called two civilian witnesses as the caution interview and the charge statement were tendered by consent of the Defence Counsel. The Defence called two witnesses including the Accused.
 
5.	Section 306(1) of the Crimes Decree 2009 provides - "A person commits a summary offence if he or she dishonestly receives stolen property, knowing or believing the property to be stolen".
 
6.	The elements of the offence that the Prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt are:

i.	Dishonestly receives.
ii.	Receiving knowing or believing the property to be stolen.

7.	The property alleged to be stolen in this case is a bullock.

8.	The Prosecution first witness is Aruna Devi, the person who complaint to the Police that her bullock was stolen. Her statement was not disclosed to the Defence Counsel and the Defence Counsel did not object for her to give evidence as the Defence Counsel had the benefit of perusing her statement before the hearing. Aruna Devi in her examination in chief, she said her bullock was stolen, when cross examined by the Defence Counsel, she agreed that the bullock belongs to her son in law. This witness cannot confirmed the date in which the bullock was stolen, even after her statement was read to her by the Court Clerk, she still cannot confirmed the date in which the bullock was stolen. 

9.	The second Prosecution witness, Kishor Singh. This is the person who sold the bullock to the Accused. In examination in chief, he said that he told the Police that the bullock he took to the Accused was his mother's bullock. The colour of bullock explained by this witness matches with the colour of the bullock reported by Aruna Devi to the Police that was stolen. It was a brown and black bullock. According to this witness, his mother was sick and told him to take the bullock to the Accused make agreement, sell the bullock and bring the money. He followed his mother's instruction and sold the bullock for $350.00 to the Accused and was only paid $300.00 by the Accused after they signed an agreement on 10 March 2013. The agreement was tendered as Prosecution Exhibit 3. This witness states that he brought the bullock from his sister's place.

10.	When Kishor Singh was cross examined, he confirms that the bullock he sold to the Accused belongs to her mother. That he signed the agreement with the Accused as authorised by her mother and received $300.00 from the Accused. He confirms that he informed the Accused that his mother send him as she was sick.

11.	The Accused in examination in chief, said that he made arrangement with Kishore Singh's mother for a bullock as the Accused brother had passed away. The bullock was delivered to the Accused's home by Kishor where Kishor informed the Accused that his mother is sick and she sent him to deliver the bullock and collect the money. The Accused in his evidence in chief, he confirms that when he bought the bullock he do not know that it was stolen. In cross examination, he denied that the bullock was stolen as he had earlier made arrangement with Kishor's mother.

12.	The Accused in his evidence confirms that he was making arrangement with Kishor's mother for the Accused to buy a bullock from Kishor's mother. Kishor turns up to Accused home, informing the Accused that his mother sent him as his mother is sick. Kishor deny stole that bullock. The Accused deny that the bullock was stolen and also state that at the time he received the bullock from Kishor, he did not know or believe that the bullock was stolen. 

13.	In assessing the evidence adduced in particular the Prosecution's evidence, the Prosecution fails to established and proved the elements of the offence.

14.	I accept the Accused and Kishor Singh's evidence and find that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

15.	In my judgment, I find the Accused not guilty to the charge, and I acquit the Accused accordingly.

28 day to appeals

........................................
Cama M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE