The High Court in Suva has acquitted Akuila Noa of a murder charge, ruling that the Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2025, Justice Thusara Rajasinghe found that key elements of the State’s case — including CCTV identification and DNA evidence — were unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Noa had been charged with one count of murder in relation to the death of night security guard Vinay Vishaal Prasad at Samabula on 21 April 2023.
The Prosecution called 31 witnesses and tendered 49 exhibits, relying largely on circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and DNA found on items recovered from the crime scene.
However, Justice Rajasinghe ruled that the CCTV identification evidence was neither credible nor reliable.
The Court found significant weaknesses in the witnesses’ reliance on walking style and unclear facial features, noting that the quality of the CCTV footage was insufficient to support positive identification.
Turning to the DNA evidence, Justice Rajasinghe highlighted serious concerns about inconsistencies in the chain of custody, contradictions between crime scene investigators and forensic officers, and the lack of accreditation of the Police Forensic Biology and DNA Laboratory.
The Court also accepted that the DNA evidence, described as trace DNA, could have been transferred through secondary means.
“There is a strong possibility that [another individual] introduced the piece of cloth and flip-flop found at the crime scene,” Justice Rajasinghe said, creating reasonable doubt as to how the accused’s DNA came to be present.
Justice Rajasinghe concluded that, with the identification evidence discredited and DNA evidence unreliable, the Prosecution had failed to establish the accused’s guilt.
“I find that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused committed the offence as charged,” he said.
Akuila Noa was accordingly found not guilty and acquitted of the charge of murder. The State has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Fiji Court of Appeal.
