Ramroop v R

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: de la Bastide J.A.
• Judgment Date: 30 June 1969
• Neutral Citation: TT 1969 CA 26
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1969
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 30 June 1969

Court of Appeal

McShine C.J.; Phillips J.A.; Bastide J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1969

Ramroop

and

Regina

Appearances:

Mr. A.C. Rienzi for the appellant.

Mr. F. Mohan for the Crown

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Murder

de la Bastide J.A.

1 This is an appeal by Ramesh Ramroop against his conviction on January 27, 1969, for the murder of Kissoon Mohess at Abdul Village, Penal. The case for the prosecution as presented at the trial was that on Saturday, July 6, 1968, at about 8 p.m. Kissoon Mohess a shopkeeper residing with his wife Dolly Mohess on the first floor of his shop building at Abdul Village, was engaged in closing up his business premises for the night. His wife who was about to make tea had gone into the backyard for some water. While in the yard she heard a noise upstairs and called to her husband who immediately proceeded to the first floor of the building to investigate. A little boy called Ricki who was in the yard at that time also ran upstairs. In a short while Dolly Mohess heard Ricki screaming loudly, which caused her to run at once into the building. There she came face to face with two young men whom she referred to as boys and later identified. She alleged that these young men were then both wearing black masks on their faces. One was carrying a gun and the other held a piece of wood as they stood confronting her inside the shop premises. She immediately cried out, “Oh God you kill my husband” and claimed that the boys replied, “Shut your mouth.” As they spoke the mask fell from the face of one of these young men who Dolly Mohess claimed to have then recognised as the first accused, Satrohan Ramlal, whom she had known for many years. She further claimed that she was also able to identify the other young man as the appellant Ramesh Ramroop because, in her own words, she had “known him for so long that she could make him out any time”. In describing these young men she also stated that during the above mentioned period she observed that Satrohan Ramlal was holding a revolver and a torch light while the appellant carried a piece of wood.

2 It appears from the evidence that these young men then ordered her to go upstairs and they followed her. She passed through the kitchen and into the dining room where she saw her husband lying on the floor unconscious and bleeding. She went towards him crying out, “look what you have done to my husband”, after which she claimed that both accused threatened to kill her. She nevertheless kept saying to them “what you kill him for, all you kill him for money he had no money on him” She was then ordered downstairs where there was some money and an account book on a table. She threw the money and the book towards the two young men at which they took up the money and ran to the door of the garage, which they tried to open. Satrohan Ramlal meanwhile saying, “if you move from here I will kill you”. The two accused then ran out of the shop and disappeared. Shortly after they had left, neighbours and friends arrived on the scene to investigate the noise and screams of Dolly Mohess. At this time Sooknanan Mohess, a brother-in-law of Dolly Mohess who had just arrived stated (as he alleged in his evidence), that he had seen two men in the vicinity of the yard and was able to identify the appellant as one of them as they ran off. Dolly Mohess then and there also gave the names of her husband's alleged assailants whom she claimed she had seen on her premises and had spoken to at the relevant time. She next gave a full statement in writing to the police and later appeared and gave evidence at a preliminary enquiry held at the magistrate's court into the alleged murder of her husband. She also finally gave evidence before the jury when the case was heard at the criminal assizes. Those several statements by Dolly Mohess, which in certain respects varied from each other, were exhaustively dealt with at the assizes by both counsel and also by the trial judge and no...