Mash Day murder trial...Victim was stabbed multiple times

Mash Day murder trial…Victim was stabbed multiple times

Mar 19, 2015 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

– Gov’t Pathologist testifies
The final witness is expected to take the stand today in the murder trial of the duo implicated in the mob killing of Enterprise, East Coast Demerara businessman, Kumar Mohabir which occurred on February 23, 2013.

Kumar Mohabir

Mohabir, called “Duksy” and “Fire Link” of Lot 7 Fernandes Street, Enterprise, East Coast Demerara (ECD), was attacked and brutally stabbed by a group of men on Vlissengen Road, Georgetown, on February 23, 2013. The man, who operated a tent rental business at his residence, was attacked after he went to the location to collect a tent he rented to his neighbours for the Republic Day celebrations.
Mohabir was stabbed by a group of intoxicated persons, armed with broken bottles.
The businessman was subsequently rushed to the Woodlands Hospital where he died while receiving treatment. The businessman’s older brother, Navindra Mohabir, who was also wounded in the attack was treated at the institution and sent away.
Subsequent investigations led to the arrest of Devon Thomas and Randy Isaac. They were identified as suspects involved in the mob-like attack on the businessman. They were charged jointly for the murder.
Seven witnesses have thus far testified in the trial, being conducted by Justice Navindra Singh and a mixed 12-member jury at the High Court in Georgetown.
Attorneys-at-Law Latchmie Rahamat and Peter Hugh are representing the two accused while the case is being presented by State Prosecutors, Stacy Gooding and Diana Kaulesar.   Prosecutor Gooding has since called the victim’s uncle Bheenchand Mohabir; Hardatt Rajkumar, (Thomas’ brother-in-law), Police Constable Shawn Roberts, Superintendent of Police Boodnarine Persaud, Detective Corporal Winston Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police,(DSP) Steve Booker and Government Pathologist Dr. Nehaul Singh to the stand.
The latter two persons took the stand yesterday.
In his evidence, the Government Pathologist told the court that a post mortem examination revealed that Mohabir died as a result of multiple stab wounds.
Under cross examination by the defence, Dr. Singh related that he was not able to ascertain whether the weapon used in the murder was made of glass. He said that he checked the body and around the wounds for glass fragments but he did not find anything. The doctor however, noted that injuries were caused by a sharp object. Based on his examination, Singh said that he could not determine whether the injuries were inflicted by one or more persons.
The defence had suggested that the injuries could have been inflicted after the victim fell on a sharp object. However, based on a question by a juror, the doctor noted that such a probability is farfetched. He explained that such likelihood would have resulted in one or two lacerations not multiple stab wounds.
Deputy Superintendent Booker subsequently testified that he conducted an identification parade involving Randy Isaac (the number two accused). The officer said that prior to the exercise, he told the accused that he was a suspect in the February 23 stabbing that led to the death of Kumar Mohabir. The officer said that Navindra Mohabir (the brother of the deceased) attended the parade and identified Isaac as one of the persons who stabbed his brother.
Under cross examination by Defence Counsel Peter Hugh, the witness was asked whether he noticed anything about the accused that would have set him apart from the other suspects in the identification line, but he said that he did not notice anything different about the suspect.
The lawyer then specified whether at the time of the ID parade the officer noticed anything about his client’s eyes or that he had a “funny eye.”
The officer replied in the negative but upon the insistence of the Attorney, he spent a few minutes staring at the accused, who was seated in the prisoner’s dock.
Supt Booker subsequently accepted that one of Isaac’s eyes is slightly smaller than the other.   The witness was further asked if Isaac had any other distinctive feature about his body; particularly tattoos on his arms.   In response, the officer said that he didn’t notice any tattoos.
He however, accepted that tattoos can be viewed as distinguishing marks which might have set the accused aside from others participating in the parade.    It was therefore pointed out to the witness that the accused has tattoos on both his forearms. Isaac was then allowed to roll up his sleeves exposing his tattooed forearms for the court to examine.
Further questioned about the process of exercise, the officer noted that he never inquired Isaac’s age before placing him on the parade.   Booker said that he merely averaged that the accused was between 18 and 25 years old.   The Defence Counsel then pointed out to Supt Booker that Isaac was only 17 years old at the time; thus, he might have been placed on an ID parade with suspects much older than himself.