State v Prasad [2016] FJMC 247; Criminal Case 113.2016 (31 August 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT

AT NAUSORI

IN THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
Criminal Case No: 113/16

State

.V.

Priya Darshani Prasad

Prosecution : DPP

Accused : Present - Represented by Ms N Karan

Sentence

Introduction

The accused person is charged as follows:

Count One

Act Intended To Cause Grievous Harm, contrary to Section 255 (a) of Crimes Decree Number 44 of 2009.

Particulars of offence (b)

Priya Darshani Prasad on the 27^th day of January, 2016, at Waila, Nausori in the Central Division, with intent to do some grievous harm to Rohit Sanjesh Kumar unlawfully wounded the said Rohit Sanjesh Kumar, with a chopper.

When the charges were read out and explained to the accused, she informed the Court that she understood it and then on her own free she pleaded guilty to the charge. The statement of facts were read out and she admitted the facts in Court. She was convicted as per the charge by the Court.

The Maximum

The offence carries a maximum of life imprisonment. The High Court has extended the power of this Court to deal with the Charge.
The Tariff

The tariff for the offence is from a suspended sentence to 5 years imprisonment.

In State v Chand [2011] FJHC 19; HAC07.2011 (27 January 2011), Justice Madigan stated:

“The maximum penalty for the offence of act with intent to cause grievous harm is imprisonment for life. This is an offence relatively new to the jurisdiction, introduced by the Crimes Decree 2009 on February 1st, 2010. Until a body of sentencing authorities is secured, it is helpful to rely on the analogous section 224 of the old Penal Code, the offence of an act intended to cause grievous harm . It was estaed in ViliaViliame Cavubati – HAA 80 of 2001 by Shameem J. that the accepted tariff for this offence should range f suspended sentence through to 2 ½ years. This Court said in Amasi Korovata &#8> – HAC 11 of 2009 that the range now should extend up to 4 to 5 years.”

The Mitigating Factors

The accused is 31 years and in de-facto relationship with victim and has 2 children (ages 7 years and 1 ½ years).. Seeking forgiveness. A first offender and pleaded guilty on first available opportunity. Seeking forgiveness and leniency. Remorseful for her actions. Assists De-facto by driving taxi.

The Sentence

The actions of the accused are not condoned. The Court notes the tariff of the offence and the circumstances of the offending.

The Court takes a starting point of 24 months. For the guilty plea and mitigation this court gives 8 months discount. The sentence for the accused is 18 months imprisonment.

The victim was asked to come to Court and the victim confirmed reconciliation with the accused. The victim stated in Court that the children need the mother. While this Court is mindful of this that alone is not an issue.This Court has carefully weighed all the information that is before it. It has noted the guilty plea of the accused person, previous good character, the family situation, which include the impact on reconciliation between parties if the accused is sent to prison and the circumstances of the offending and for this reason the court will suspend the sentences of the accused person. The 18 months imprisonment term is suspended for 2 years. The accused is explained the meaning of suspended sentence in open Court. To protect recurrence of such incidences in future this Court will impose a Domestic Violence Restraining Order to protect violence in the family and will explain the effect and consequences of breach the DVRO to the accused person in open court. The DVRO is in favour of the complainant.

Sentence Summary

18 months/suspended for 2 years.

DVRO to protect the victim.

Right to appeal.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
31^st August 2016