–defence counsel contends exhibits are doubtful
A .38 SPECIAL Smith and Wesson revolver, serial number 1767161 in a cream parcel marked “HM 17 DD”, a white envelope marked “HM 16 DD”,  and an envelope marked “HM 17DD” which contained five (5) live .38 special ammunition were shown to the jury in the Stewartville murder trial yesterday.
At that trial, five empty shells said to have been fired by a revolver, which according to a ballistics report had emanated from the revolver in court, and a warhead which was found in the body of Vishnu Santie, deceased, have all been examined by the jury.
Peter Ray Kassim and Satnanand Sahadeo are facing trial for the murder of Vishnu Santie, committed on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at Stewartville, West Coast Demerara.
They have pleaded not guilty, and are represented by lawyers Mr. Hukumchand and Mr. George Thomas.
Earlier in the trial, defence counsel made submissions that the evidence tended to show doubts in relation to the revolver being a lawful exhibit in the case.
But prosecuting counsel Mrs. Judith Gildharie-Mursalin and Miss Renita Singh are contending that the State was on the right path.
Earlier in the trial, a witness had described the revolver as a “short gun”, resulting in this newspaper erroneously referring to the gun as a “shot gun”.
Yesterday, police ballistics expert Sgt. Eon Jackson, who had examined the exhibits, testified.
He said that the cream paper parcel marked “HM 16DD” contained the .38 special revolver, and the parcel marked “HM 17 DD” contained the five live special .38 ammunition.
Witness also said that Corporal Harry had given him a white envelope marked “NH 18DD” which contained a .38 special fired lead bullet and a .380 fired bullet; a white envelope marked “NH 19DD” which contained four fired .380 casings; a white envelope marked “NH 20 DD” which contained a .380 fired bullet.
According to Sgt. Jackson, ballistics certificates were issued for the contents of the aforementioned envelopes.
The witness said that when he received the exhibits from Corporal Mohamed, it was the first time they had come into his possession. He had no knowledge of the exhibits prior to Corporal Mohamed giving them to him.
He said that, although rusty, the gun still fired. He was not the person who had previously fired the weapon. He had not seen anyone firing that weapon at anybody.
Hearing in the matter continues today.