Justice Dawn Gregory-Barnes on Monday imposed a 20-year jail term on Satrohan Mannaru, also called “Andrew” of Black Bush Polder, for killing his girlfriend at a school sport in the area back in October 2011.
Mannaru had murdered 13-year-old Indranie Basdeo also known as “Cynthia” on October 7, 2011. The jury arrived at the decision 25 minutes after receiving directions from Justice Gregory-Barnes. After the jury returned the unanimous verdict, Mannaru told the court he has nothing to say.
Before imposing the sentence, the judge told him that he will get five years off the 25 years because it was a “crime of passion”. During the month-long trial, the prosecution called 11 witnesses while the defence called the accused who gave an unsworn statement in which he claimed that the incident was an accident, as it was done unintentionally.
In addressing the jury after closing the defence’s case, Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos urged the jurors to believe that his client had shown love for Basdeo, in that even when she was on the ground bleeding, he hugged her and buckled her with his legs.
He reminded the jury that in his evidence, the brother-in-law of the now dead teenager said, “a crowd had gathered”. He asked the jury to consider the fact that in their investigation, the police only picked out three persons from the crowd.
“What happened to all the other people, only three relatives of the victim? Couldn’t they get an independent witness?” The attorney argued that one of the prosecution’s chief witnesses Tulsiedai Basdeo, who is the sister of the diseased, admitted that when she gave a statement to the police on the day after the incident, she made no mention of a knife, but in a subsequent statement made mention of it.
Different story
De Santos pointed out to the jury that Tulsiedai told a different story during the trial to what she told the magistrate during the preliminary inquiry (PI). “Remember when I cross-examined her, she told this court that she was confused and that the story she was giving here is the truth.”
He asked the jury to consider her as a programmed witness. “She refused to answer a number of questions when cross-examined by me.”
De Santos submitted that the girl was injured. “She was injured by a knife which the accused had.”
He argued that the accused was committed to the deceased, in that, he tattooed her name on his forearm.
“I ask you to find that the caution statement was not the words of the accused,” he challenged the jury. “During all the evidence given, you did not hear of any enmity between the accused and the deceased.” Before closing, he asked the jury to accept the defendant’s account of what transpired.
“… Indranie accidentally get bore when she hold on to me hand… I did not intentionally do it.”
Consequences
In her address to the jury, State Persecutor, Attorney Renita Singh said “Tulsiedai is human, and you saw her, she broke down even two years after the incident as she recounted the events as they unfolded. She also told us that she was here to tell the truth and what she remembered.
She said that during the preliminary inquiry at the magistrate’s court, she was confused when she gave evidence because the lawyer was hollering on her.”
The prosecutor said the accused had all intentions to kill and after stabbing the girl, he buckled her down and did not allow her relatives to get to her to render assistance.
“Even though the murder weapon was not produced as evidence that does not say that the incident did not occur. All the witnesses mentioned a knife; even the accused mentioned a knife. The knife was produced as evidence in the magistrate court during the preliminary inquiry,” she noted.
The attorney argued that the fact that the caution statement was taken in the enquiries office at the police station, it is enough proof that it was free and voluntary since that office is open to the public. She asked the jury for them to be satisfied of his guilt before convicting him.
Justice Gregory-Barnes had advised the jury to consider the caution statement as to whether it was what the accused told the police, or whether the police wrote their own statement. She said if they agree with anything that both the prosecution and the defence said in both their addresses, then they may use it in their deliberations.
She reminded the jury that there were differences in the evidence that was given by Tulsiedai and her husband, Arnold Reddi. “If you feel that a witness is lying, then you may discard that evidence.”
The defence case was that Mannaru was acting in self-defence when Basdeo was killed, in that, he became scared when he saw Basdeo’s brother-in-law Reddi, running towards him and thus he pulled out the knife to protect himself.
