|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V12) 1 CLR 87
1926 November 23
(NICOSIA ASSIZES.)
[NETTLETON, C.J., DICKINSON, P.J., THOMAS, P.D.C., FUAD AND MAVROMATIS, J.J.]
REX.
v.
KRYIAKO VARNAVA HAJI PIERI AND OTHERS.
MURDER-ADMISSIBILITY OF PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINT-LAW 1 OF 1886, SECTION 29-SERIES OF COMPLAINTS-DYING DECLARATION-ACCOMPLICE TO KILLING WITHOUT PREMEDITATION.
Lucie-Smith for the Crown.
Paschalis and Stavrinakis for accused.
Accused was charged with having murdered X. with premeditation. X. shortly after being stabbed made a complaint to a zaptieh and some four or five minutes later, on the arrival of a non-commissioned officer, made another complaint to him. The Court admitted the first complaint under section 29 of Law 1 of 1886, but refused to admit the second complaint; holding that the last "or" in the proviso to section 29 of Law 1 of 1886 is disjunctive, and that where a complainant has made a complaint to the first person or persons he or she has met, the Crown is precluded from adducing evidence of a later complaint made by the complainant to any other person, whether such other person is such a person as the Court would consider that it was natural that the complainant should complain to or not.
Rex v. Hassan Mulla Mehmed, VIII., C.L.R., p. 78, distinguished. In that case the complainant made three almost simultaneous complaints and all to persons to whom the Court considered it natural he should complain.
It was then sought by the Crown to put in the statement made to the non-commissioned officer as a dying declaration.
Medical evidence showed that deceased had been terribly stabbed, and from the nature of the wound and deceased's statement "I am dying," the Court inferred that deceased was conscious of impending death.
R. v. Woodcook, 1 Leach 502.
R. v. Dingler, 1 Leach 504.
R. v. Bonner, 6 C. & P. 386.
R. v. Cleary, 2 F. & F. 850.
The Court admitted the statement to the non-commissioned officer as a dying declaration, and refused to follow the decision in Rex v. Kalli Haji Sterko, Vol. VIII., C.L.R., p. 96, and referred to the note to the appendix at p. 139 of Vol. VIII., C.L.R.
The first accused was found guilty of killing without premeditation, and the second accused was found guilty as an accomplice to the offence of killing without premeditation.