MAHADEO Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji sitting at the Lautoka Circuit Court dated 17 May 1934 by which the appellant was found guilty of the murder of a boy named Ramautar, and being a young person within the meaning of the Fiji Ordinance No. 37 of 1932 was, pursuant to S.12, sentenced to be detained as the Governor might direct. The appellant is in fact about 16 years old. Ramautar, the boy alleged to have been murdered, was about 13 years old. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 6 of 1875 the trial was held before the Chief Justice of Fiji, who is the only Judge in the Island, sitting with assessors, and by S. 29 of the same Ordinance the decision was vested solely in the Judge. By virtue of S. 32 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1875 the trial, for all purposes material to the present appeal, fell to be governed by the English common law.

(2.) The materials before their Lordships on the hearing of the appeal consisted of the official note (not taking questions and answers verbatim), the Judge's own somewhat abbreviated notes, a resume of the remarks of the Chief Justice to the assessors at the close of the case, in the nature of a summing up, which resume was handed by the then Chief Justice to the then Attorney-General after the institution of this appeal and brought before their Lordships as an exhibit to an affidavit by the Attorney-General for Fiji and lastly a note of the summing up in longhand made by one of the counsel for the defence at the trial and exhibited to an affidavit by him. Certain incidents in the trial to which it will be necessary to refer appear from affidavits made by counsel for the defence and the then Attorney-General. In substance there is no conflict as to these incidents. The case was tried upon information by the Attorney- General pursuant to the procedure in force in the Colony, by which the appellant was charged with murder, and one Mathura, his step-father and another boy, Sarandas, were charged, Sarandas with aiding and abetting and Mathura with being an accessory after the fact. In the result Sarandas was discharged at the close of the case for the prosecution and Mathura, like the appellant, was convicted. The history of the case can be stated comparatively briefly. The only evidence as to the actual homicide was given by one Sukraj, a labourer about 25 years of age. The effect of this was as follows :

(3.) On the morning of 18 January 1934 the appellant, the witness Sukraj, the dead boy Ramautar who was about 13 years of age, and Sarandas, about the same age as Ramautar, namely 13 years of age, were weeding in a field belonging to Mathura. A quarrel resulting in a struggle arose between Ramautar and Sarandas, who was the stronger boy. The appellant told Sukraj to separate them and on his refusal intervened himself. At this moment the deceased had hold of Sarandas's legs. The appellant released Sarandas and caught Ramautar by the throat while he was on the ground. The witness and Sarandas were then cutting grass. The appellant called out in a short time and said, "Come and see what has happened to Ramautar." When the witness and Sarandas got up to him the deceased was quivering. That went on for three minutes, when he died. Sukraj then deposed that on the suggestion of the appellant they took the body and put it under a tree with the deceased's turban round his throat and leaving it there returned to Mathura's house. There was independent evidence that the four youths were working together in the field in question and the deceased's dead body was seen by independent witnesses under the tree. As regards what actually happened there is only the evidence of Sukraj.