By George Barclay

MADAM Justice Jo-Ann Barlow, presiding in the Pharbu manslaughter trial, will this morning sum up the evidence to the jury before handing them the case for their consideration and verdict.Seelall Pharbu is the accused in the unlawful shooting death of Premaul Rampersaud in 2011.
Yesterday, both counsel for the defence, Mr. Glenn Hanoman, and prosecutor Miss Shonette Austin addressed the jury, each urging the jury to return a verdict that accords with the case they had presented.
Mr. Hanoman, the first to address the jury on behalf of his client Pharbu, urged the jury to find that the prosecution’s case had produced more questions than answers. Consequently, he said, the prosecution witnesses could not give a full story of what the evidence was all about.

Defence counsel said his client admitted that he was so drunk on that day that what he had said in the caution statement was not something of his own knowledge, but what was told to him by a suspect who was sitting next to him.

According to the defence counsel, Pharbu could not drive on that day, and had to ask someone to take over the wheel. Therefore, it was no surprise that he had to say he was about to clear the gun when his fingers accidentally touched the trigger.

Prosecutor Ms Austin disagreed with the assertion that what had occurred was an accident, as the defence would like the jury to believe. She contended that when one thing happens over and over again, it can no longer be termed an accident. According to the prosecutor, the accused was involved in a deliberate act, and not an accident, as he alleges.

Prosecutor Tamieka Clarke was delivering her opening address in the Pharbu manslaughter case when she told the jury that witnesses would tell them of hearing two bangs that left Rampersaud a dead man while the accused was armed with a gun.

She went on to say: “Seelall Pharbu has been indicted by the State for manslaughter, the unlawful killing of a human being by another without malice aforethought; which is, intention to kill.”

She continued: “Members of the jury, it is the prosecution’s burden to prove this case against the accused. As he sits in the prisoner’s dock, he has nothing to prove. So as you listen to the evidence, you are to bear in mind that the prosecution has to prove the following elements or ingredients of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt:
i. The accused inflicted the injuries on the deceased, Premaul Rampersaud.
ii. The deceased died as a result of these injuries.
iii. The deceased died within a day and a year of receiving the injuries.
iv. The incident was not an accident, it was not done in self-defence, nor was there any provocation.

“These ingredients will be proven by the evidence of the witnesses. You heard a story that the deceased, Premaul Rampersaud, was in the front passenger seat with three other persons in the car. Earlier they were at a shop where they had something to drink, then they were at a wedding house. On the way from the wedding house, they heard a loud bang and then another.

“After that, two witnesses observed the accused with a gun in his hand; the deceased was not moving. They got out of the car to see what was wrong with Premaul. The accused got into the driver’s seat and drove away the car. They followed in another car, where they met Premaul and the accused at the GPHC, where Premaul was pronounced dead on arrival.”

The judge will begin summing up the evidence at 10:00hrs today.