Sukhram et Al v The State
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Bernard, C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 29 March 1993 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1993 CA 5 |
| Docket Number | Crim. App. Nos.5, 6 & 7 of 1988 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 29 March 1993 |
Court of Appeal
Bernard, C.J., Sharma, J.A.; Ibrahim, J.A
Crim. App. Nos.5, 6 & 7 of 1988
D.Singh S.C. (of the Guyana Bar) and B. Dolsingh and R.Rajcoomar for the appellants/applicants
A. Benjamin [D.P.P.(Ag.)] and D. Seetahal and M. Mohammed for the respondent
Criminal law - Defences — Judge's directions adequate on defences of 2 of 3 accused — Treatment of defence for 3rd accused required a fuller explanation of defences raised — No possibility of any injustice — Application of proviso.
Criminal law - Homicide — Strong circumstantial evidence — Trial judge's directions on common design and on separate consideration of case against each appellant proper and adequate.
Evidence - Admissibility — Confessional statement — Appellate court will not differ from conclusions reached by trial judge unless telling factors and compelling circumstances are apparent.
Evidence - Admissibility — Open to prosecution to call evidence of acts and conduct of appellants subsequent to date of death of victim.
The appellants Deolal Sukram, Girjadath and Jainarine Persaud were convicted by a jury at the Port-of-Spain Assizes for the murder of Ashton Ramkhalawansingh (“the deceased”) and were sentenced to death. They have all appealed against their convictions and sentence on a number of common grounds to which the court will come in a moment.
The deceased was last seen alive on 31 st March, 1985. Not too long after this day - 12 th April, 1985, to be precise - his body was found immersed in a sealed concrete septic tank at Maraj Street in Tunapuna with a plastic bag covering the head and extending down to his neck. This bag was tied and secured by wire at the base of the neck. Under this bag there was a towel which was also tied securely over the face, nose and mouth.
The appellant Persaud had been residing on the lower floor of at Maraj Street in Tunapuna with his family sometime before 31 st March, and was carrying on a footwear business there as well under the name of Solomon Bernard up to 30 th March and in which business the deceased had had an interest for he was the one who had financed it. The business came to an end on 23rd March. Besides, the further evidence for the prosecution was that Persaud was well acquainted with the whereabouts of the septic tank for he, himself had done repair work of a delicate nature to it. He was known and accepted to be a utility man of sorts.
Persaud was last seen on the compound on 31st March by one Vashti Singh who resided on the upstairs floor of the building. Thereafter, his apartment remained totally abandoned.
After its retrieval from the septic tank the face of the deceased was not recognizable. Nevertheless, it was positively identified through the process of a number of irresistible factors. Among these were his attire and the food he had consumed on the last day he was seen alive by a relative by the name of Alexander Ragunanan, namely 31 st March. Ragunanan had accompanied the deceased on that day to the seaside in the deceased's car PAM 9562 where they spent the day swimming and indulging in food and drink and later left there for home. Added to this there was positive identification by Dr. Kamal Ashraph, an orthodontist, who recognised specialist work which he had done on the dentures of the deceased. And next there was recognition by an uncle named Norman Deosaran of a special type of “Seiko” watch and of a pen which Deosaran had given to the deceased, the latter of which had belonged to him. These two things were found on the person of the deceased after his body had been retrieved from the septic tank.
In the opinion of the pathologist, Dr. Chandulal, his forensic test which was conducted on 13 th April revealed that the deceased had been immersed in the septic tank in the condition in which he was found while he was still alive. That apart, his examination also revealed the presence of three ante mortem injuries on the ‘deceased, the chief of which was a lacerated wound on the vortex of the head measuring 32 inches. It was gaping. In association with this wound there was a depressed fracture of the left parital bone of the skull combined with a number of other fractures.
The pathologist formed the opinion that the deceased had succumbed approximately twelve-fourteen days before his autopsy on the 13 th April. In addition, he opined that death was caused by the head injury with a blunt instrument such as a piece of wood with the use of moderate to severe degree of force combined with suffocation. The latter, in the doctor's view, was occasioned “by the process of tying a towel all around the nose and mouth and the use of a garbage bag whose mouth was firmly tied all around the neck with [the] wire.”
It should here be noted that under cross-examination the pathologist ruled out altogether the suggestion that this head injury could have resulted from a banging of the head against a wall because (1) this would not have been sufficient to cause the injury that he had found and (2) an act of the kind would have resulted in a lineal as opposed to a depressed fracture.
All the foregoing evidence was not seriously disputed.
All three appellants are natives of Guyana. They had come to Trinidad sometime before the discovery of the body of the deceased and had set up shop firstly at the deceased's family residence at Don Miguel Road in San Juan and later at Persaud's residence on Maraj Street in Tunapuna where all three of them engaged in the making of footwear for sale through the medium of Persaud. As was said earlier, the deceased was the one who had financed the business venture.
A few days after 31 st March, however, all three appellants left this country for their homeland. Following certain developments a little while after their departure, the three of them were later extradited to this country after formalities there had been observed, and thereafter were later charged and indicted for the murder of the deceased.
The case for the prosecution against all three appellants presented no real or significant complications. It was based on circumstantial evidence, some of which have already been alluded to earlier and more of which will later be disclosed, as well as written confessional statements given in their homeland, Guyana, to the Guyana police there, to which country they appeared from the evidence to have made a hasty retreat. These written confessional statements were all in the respective appellant's own handwriting.
It would be appropriate now to elaborate somewhat more on the case for the prosecution as it emerged from the other state witnesses.
The mother of the deceased, Cynthia Ramkhalawansingh, testified that sometime in the afternoon of 31st March, the deceased hailed out to her on his return to the family residence at Don Miguel Road while she was showering. That was the last time she had heard his voice or for that matter seen him alive. In this regard she was supported by her daughter, Cheryl, who asserted that actually seen the deceased when he had returned later that same afternoon and when he eventually left the family home sometime thereafter in his car PAM 9562.
The next stage in the prosecution's case had to do with a number of allegedly significant turn of events after 31st March.
It is not in dispute that early in the morning of 1 st April Mrs. Ramkhalawansingh rose from bed and happened to look outside. At that time her husband, David, had already risen from bed and was outside tending the family garden. As Mrs. Ramkhalawansingh did so, she happened to see an envelope tied to a post of the step to the back door. She retrieved it. It was hand-written. She then read it and immediately raised a loud alarm. This caused her husband, David, and certain members of the Fraser family who occupied the apartments below, namely Sylvia Fraser and her niece, Bridget Joseph, to rush immediately to her aid. The document was read in turn by all of them. In short, it turned out to be a demand for a ransom of $100,000 T.T. in denominations of $100 notes with instructions as to when and where the money was to be deposited, failing which the Ramkhalawansingh's son would be killed. The local police were immediately thereafter brought into the picture but not before and indeed after a number of telephone calls were made to and received by the household as a follow up to this written demand.
It is of interest and of material significance to note at this juncture that this document, which can appropriately be described as a “Ramson Note”, when later forensically compared and examined with the handwritten confessional statements of all three appellants was, in the opinion of the handwriting expert, Dr. Louis Manchew, written by the appellant Deolal Sukhram.
The evidence for the prosecution also was that after contacting the police the Ramkhalawansingh family with the assistance of Mrs. Fraser and her niece. Bridget, hurriedly proceed to cut up bits of newspapers to resemble in shape and size that of legal $100T.T. notes. These they all placed in a bag which the deceased's father, David, took to and deposited at a place in Port of Spain and at the particular time designated in the ramson note which, incidentally, purported to emanate from more than one person.
Shortly after the father of the deceased returned home from this mission, he received yet another telephone call. In response to this call and with the assistance of the deceased's uncle, Norman Deosaran, he collected altogether $100,000 T.T. in denominations of $100. each and returned to his home at Don Miguel Road, San Juan. There, he, his daughter Cheryl, and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial