Trial for the murder of Rupert Berney Appasamy Life sentences for Ken Jean-Charles and Sindu Parekh |04 June 2022

Jean-Charles

The Supreme Court of Seychelles yesterday evening sentenced Ken Wess Jean-Charles and Sindu Cliff Parekh to life in prison after being found guilty for the death of Berney Rupert Appasamy whose decomposed body was found shallowly buried at Bougainville, Takamaka on September 23, 2021.

Jean-Charles has been sentenced for murder, while Parekh will serve time for counselling or procuring another to commit the offence of murder

It took the jury of nine – five women and four men – a little more than three hours to give their verdicts.

Eight out of the nine-member jury found Jean-Charles guilty, while seven out of nine found Parekh guilty.

The case was being presided over by Justice Mohan Niranjit Burhan, with lawyers Olivier Chang-Leng and Tony Juliette representing Jean-Charles and Parekh respectively, while Corrine Rose and Georges Thachet were the prosecution lawyers.

Yesterday’s session began with the summing up and direction by the judge, which is the normal procedure where the judge explains the law to the nine-member jury and summarise the facts of the case.

In the process, Justice Burhan set out for the jury the law on each of the charges made and what the prosecution must prove to make the jury sure of the case.

Referring to his notes made during the course of the trial, he reminded the jury of the key points of the case, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s argument.

Justice Burhan then gave directions about the duties of the jury before they retired to the jury deliberation room to consider the verdict.

Justice Burhan began his summing up with elements of the offence, instructing the jury on the individual elements of each offence, so that they had to be sure of all the elements of each offence to find the accused guilty.

He reminded the members of the jury that they had been charged with the responsibility of deciding whether, on the facts of the case, the accused were guilty or not guilty of the offences which they were charged with.

He further reminded them that they must reach a verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge, and that they should follow the directions of the judge as regards legal matters.

He also reminded the members that their judgement should not be based on whatever they have been seeing, hearing or reading from the media recently, or furthermore on what has been written or displayed on social media.

He firstly gave details of the three charges which are murder, counselling or procuring another to commit the offence of murder, and also conspiring with another to commit the offence of murder.

Explaining the severity of the second and third charges, referring to Section 22 of the Penal Code, Justice Burhan noted that when an offence is committed, each person who is deemed to have taken part in committing is guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it.

This, he said, include every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence, every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence, every person who aids or abets another person in committing the offence, and any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

In the fourth case he may be charged with himself committing the offence or with counselling or procuring its commission.

Justice Burhan explained that conviction of counselling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the same consequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence, any person who procures another to do or omit to do any act of such nature that, if he had himself done the act or made the omission, the act or omission would have constituted an offence on his part, is guilty of an offence of the same kind, and is liable to the same punishment, as if he had himself done the act or made the omission, and he may be charged with himself doing the act or making the omission.

He then moved to the evidence part of the case where he explained that direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did, while circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact, which a combination can create a guilty result.

Justice Burhan noted that it is very important for members of the jury to understand clearly that circumstantial evidence is no less important than direct evidence, especially in the case of Parekh.

He also reminded the jury that they should not reject evidence based on the fact that the prosecution based its case on the testimony of a former accused in the case.

It is to note that a former accused in the case who was granted conditional offer by the Attorney General under Section 61 (A) of the Criminal Procedure Code in March this year.

The offer was based on the belief of the Attorney General the witness is directly, or indirectly concerned, or involved in or privy to the commission of the offences of Murder and/ or Aiding and Abetting in the offence of Murder (hereinafter the “offences”), that happened on, or around September 11, 2021, and that the witness with the intention to assist the Republic in prosecuting the offences, want to make a true and honest disclosure of facts known to him in relation to the commission  of the said offences.

As part of the conditions of acceptance, the witness has had the charge previously levelled against him withdrawn, under section 65 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, while he will not be charged with, or tried for any offence in any case relating to and arising out of the facts involved in the Police Docket.

He also had to make full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances and give true and honest statements that are within his knowledge and outlining all his activities relating to and in connection with any offence arising out of the facts involved, and also related activities of the above-mentioned person in the commission of the offence

Justice Burhan also reminded the jury on the unsworn evidence given by Jean-Charles in the case, stating that it was the accused choice, and on implications in their judgement at the end of the trial.

The unsworn statement is a statement made by an accused person, setting out the accused’s version of the facts, but not on oath and not subject to cross-examination.

Justice Burhan told the jury that despite not under oath, the unsworn statement should still be looked at as evidence.

Altogether, the trial gathered 17 witnesses who gave oral evidences, along with 167 pieces of exhibits, including video footages, photographs, call logs, telephone extractions and tools.

Roland Duval