Ramsabad will know fate on Monday
DEFENCE and prosecution lawyers in the  common law husband / wife rape trial addressed the mixed jury at the Demerara  Assizes yesterday ,  with the defence asking for an acquittal , and  the prosecution asking for a  guilty verdict.
Presiding judge Roxanne George, who will sum up the evidence to the jury and give them directions on the law on Monday, before handing over the case to them for a verdict, admonished them not to discuss the matter among themselves nor with anyone until the matter was handed over to them.
On the resumption yesterday, Defence counsel Mr. Peter Hugh,  representing accused Victor Ramsabad on the three-count indictment for rape, break and enter and common assault, addressed the jury for 25 minutes.
He told the jury that the case was a very simple one with no eye witnesses, and they were faced with a story told by the virtual complainant and a story by the accused.
According to him, if they believed the story as told by the alleged victim, that she  was an honest person who was at home at Grove Housing Scheme on the night of  February 13, 2005, when her former common law husband broke and entered the house and had sex with her without her consent, then the accused was guilty.
But, he pointed out that if they were satisfied that the woman had magnified the allegation in order to put the accused in trouble, because of some reason, best known to herself,  they should return a verdict of  not guilty.
On the other hand, he said, the judge would also direct them on the law, that if they were unsure as to whether or not the accused had committed the offence , then they should also return a verdict of not guilty in favour of the accused.
Defence counsel also asked the jury to consider certain aspects of the evidence which would show that the virtual complainant was not frank with the court,  such as the calling of the police by phone as against the police testimony that  she personally reported the matter to the police station and accompanied the Police to the scene.
Counsel also urged the jury to consider the evidence in which the virtual complainant had said to them that after committing the offence, the accused had gone downstairs and lay in a hammock where he fell asleep,  and was still in the hammock when the police arrived.
Counsel also urged the jury to consider that aspect of the evidence before them with that before the magistrate at the preliminary  inquiry, where she admitted that after the sexual intercourse, she followed him down stairs and lay with him in the hammock.
Prosecutor Mrs. Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, in her reply to Mr. Peter Hugh, urged the jury to find that the victim’s story was not a fabrication and was the truth of what happened.
Reacting to the allegation by Mr. Hugh that the police did not collect the exhibit 2 x 4 wood that was allegedly used by the accused to break the door of the complainant’s  home, the prosecutor noted that the witness had explained to the court that  he did not go to investigate break & enter but rape.
When dealing with the allegation that the woman had been in the hammock with the accused, the prosecutor noted that she had mothered a child for the accused, and pointed out that every woman acts differently.
She added, “The police investigations might not have been up to standard, but this does not mean that the victim was not raped that night.”
Describing the accused as ‘Ram so bad’, who said the victim calls him by the name of ‘Babes’, the  Prosecutor declared there is no  reason why this woman would make up a case against  the accused, her ‘Babes … the number one man in her life.’
The hearing was adjourned to Monday.