Chand v Reginam [1978] FJSC 54; Criminal Appeal 081 of 1978 (10 November 1978)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
Appellate Jurisdiction

Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1978

Between:

1. RAMESH CHAND F/N RAM DULARE
2. VEER CHAND F/N RAM DULARE
3. PREM HAND F/N RAM DULARE
4. SURESH CHAND F/N RAM DULARE
5. SUBHASH CHAND F/N RAM DULARE

and

REGINAM

JUDGMENT

On the 31st July 1978 at Navua Magistrates Court the appellants were jointly convicted of unlawful wounding with intent to cause grievous harm contrary to section 255(a) of the Penal Code and on the following day were each sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.

The appellants have appealed against conviction on the grounds that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of the evidence adduced and to the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and have appealed against sentence as being harsh and excessive.

The prosecution evidence established that on the night of the 30th July 1977 the appellants, some of whom were armed with sticks, set upon a neighbour while he was passing near their home inflicting lacerated wounds and other injuries. Each of the appellants was identified by an independent witness on whose evidence the trial Magistrate relied and whose identification of the appellants was corroborated by another witness.

There were discrepancies as to how many of the appellants were armed with sticks and on various other details of the assault, as one would expect in the case of an unexpected attack at night, and these were not overlooked by the trial Magistrate. However the trial Magistrate was satisfied on the prosecution evidence that the attack on the neighbour was a joint venture on the part of the appellants each of whom was aiding and abetting the others, and the trial Magistrate's finding to that effect was fully justified on the evidence, each of the appellants being a principal offender under the provisions of section 21(1)(c) of the Penal Code.

At their trial defence counsel rightly submitted that the case turned entirely on the facts, and on the facts found by the trial Magistrate the appellants were clearly guilty as charged. The appeals against conviction accordingly fail.

With regard to sentence the trial Magistrate, after adjourning to consider the position and the individual circumstances of each of the appellants, concluded that a custodial sentence was desirable and saw no reason to differentiate between the appellants; and I see no reason to differ from his approach. It is clear that the appellants, who are brothers and some of whom have previous convictions for assault, come from a violent family and they appear to be under the impression that in pursuance of family feuds and disputes with neighbours they can take the law into their own hands. It is time that they, and others like them, learned that they cannot do so with impunity and that uncivilised behaviour of this type will not be tolerated.

The appeal of each appellant is dismissed.

Chief Justice

Suva,
10th November 1978.