PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Fiji >> 1977 >> [1977] FJSC 42

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Rokeva v Reginam [1977] FJSC 42; Criminal Appeal 068 of 1977 (15 July 1977)

wpe3.jpg (10966 bytes)

Fiji Islands - Rokeva v Reginam - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 68 of 1977

TIMOCI ROKEVA
Appellant

v

REGINAM
Respondent

JUDGMENTThe appellant was convicted by the Magistrate's Court Suva Suva of robbery with violence contrary to section 326(1)(b) of the Penal and unlawful use of a motor vehicle contrary to section 325n 325 of that Code. He was sentenced to 3 1/2 years' imprisonment on the first count and 6 months' imprisonment on the second count, the two sentences to be served consecutively. He appeals against his conviction on several grounds which, taken together, allege that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that there was adequate evidence of identification to support his conviction.

The main evidence in this regard was given by the taxi driver, Rajendra Prasad, the victim of the alleged robbery. According to him, the appellant had hired his taxi in Central Suva at 9.45 a.m. on Sunday 8th May 1977 and had directed him to take him to Kinoya. He had sat next to him and another man had got in at the back. Before getting to Kinoya, the appellant had asked Rajendra Prasad to turn into Laucala Beach Estate where he and the other man had assaulted and robbed him. The appellant had then pushed him out of the car, got behind the steering wheel and driven off.

The appellant denied all this, stating that he was not in the car at all during all that period.

Rajendra Prasad, according to his evidence, went to the nearest house and rang the police. His call was received by police patrol cars and they started looking for the taxi whose description they had obtained. They saw it in Grantham Road being driven by a Fijian who tried to cover his head with some green cloth. The taxi turned into Namena Road followed by the police car. There the taxi was abandoned and two men were seen running away. They wore chased across country by the police and one of them, the appellant, was overtaken near Kaka Street. The other person escaped. The appellant was carrying a green shirt in his hand.

The appellant admitted being in the taxi and being chased by the police but stated that the other man, whom he only knew as "Pita" had given him a. lift at Raiwaqa market. There was another person in the taxi whom the driver had dropped at the State Theatre. Later near Raiwai Park when they saw a police car "Pita" told the appellant the taxi had been stolen. "Pita" then abandoned the taxi and ran; the appellant got panicky and also ran. He had not been in the taxi at the time of the alleged offences.

According to Rajendra Prasad when he later that day went to the police station, he saw the appellant and had told the police immediately that he was the person who had hired his taxi that morning.

The learned Magistrate in his judgment said:

"P.W.1 says that he is 100% certain that the accused is the man who punched him, took his money and drove his taxi away after pushing him out of it. I find that I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence before me that this accused was one of two men who hired P.W.1's taxi, took it to an isolated position and there robbed P.W.1 and took his taxi.

I do not believe this accused. I consider him to be extremely glib and cunning."

There is nothing in the evidence to show that the learned Magistrate erred in coming to this view. This case is markedly different from the usual run of cases where taxi drivers are assaulted and robbed at night in the dark making identification difficult and uncertain. This assault took place at about 10 a.m. after the taxi driver had been with the appellant for quite some time. There was also a considerable body of other evidence which lent credence to the driver's testimony. I, therefore, see no reason for upsetting the learned Magistrate's finding.

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant does not appeal against his sentence which, under the circumstances, is quite an appropriate one.

G. Mishra
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Suva,
15th July 1977


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJSC/1977/42.html