Kaloucava v Reginam [1977] FJSC 44; Criminal Appeal 070 of 1977 (19 August 1977)

Fiji Islands - Kaloucava v Reginam - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.70 of 1977

Appellant

v

REGINAM
Respondent

JUDG/b>

The appellant was convicted by the Magistrate's Ce's Court Suva of larceny contrary to section 294(1) of the Penal Cnd was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

He appeals against his convictionction and sentence.

The prosecution case briefly was that on the night of 23rd December 1976 the appellant, a police constable, with the help of another constable brought into Samabula Police Station one Waisea Raikiwasa who had been found lying drunk and incapable at the bus stop nearby. Before this man was placed in the cell all his belongings were taken from him and a list made of them. No watch was found on him. The next morning when his belongings were returned to him he complained that a wrist watch which he had been wearing the previous night ought to have been among them. He later produced to the police a card with the watch's serial number. They promised to make enquiries. The appellant had gone away the previous night on other duties and was not present in the morning when Waisea was released.

When the appellant returned to duty again on 27th December 1976 at 9 a.m. he was wearing a watch of the description given by Waisea. Insp. Ilisoni asked him whose watch it was and the appellant replied, "Mine Sir.". The Inspector checked against the Complaints Register and found on the watch the serial number given by Waisea. Later Waisea also identified the watch as his.

The appellant, in his evidence, stated that the watch had been given to him by a part European who had reported that a drunken man was lying unconscious near the bus stop. He had led him to the bus stop and on his way given him the watch with the request to keep it in his custody. Owing to pressure of work he had omitted to make a record of it. He denied that he had ever told Insp. Ilisoni that the watch was his own. He denied that he had taken the watch from Waisea.

As his witness he called Constable Uraia who had assisted him in bringing Waisea into the station. This witness, however, did little to help him. He denied seeing anyone give the appellant a watch. In answer to a question from the bench he said

"On 25/12/76 Accused told me at Nasese Barracks that the watch had been given to him by his sister as a gift."

On all this evidence the learned Magistrate was quite entitled to find that the watch found in the appellant's possession was the watch belonging to Waisea. He was also entitled to reject the accused's explanation as to how he came to acquire its possession. This he did in no uncertain terms. He was, therefore, also entitled to find that the appellant was guilty of stealing the watch. No reason has been shown to this Court why that finding should be disturbed.

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Under the circumstances of this case the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment is neither excessive nor wrong in principle. The appeal against sentence is, therefore, also dismissed.

G. Mishra
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Suva,
19th August, 1977