MAGISTRATE Teriq Mohammed on Tuesday upheld a no-case submission made by the defence in the matter of The Police vs. Vivendra Balgobin.

As a result, 48-year-old Balgobin was freed of a felonious wounding charge brought against him in connection with a 2023 shooting incident outside the Paradise Night Club in Bartica, Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni).

Balgobin, a businessman of Bartica, had been accused of unlawfully and maliciously wounding Lovella Douglas, then 18, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or cause grievous bodily harm.

The incident was alleged to have occurred on August 30, 2023.

According to a prior report, the shooting stemmed from an incident where a friend of the defendant accidentally bumped into the table where Conroy Cox, called ‘Pink Boy’, 39, of Bartica, and his girlfriend, Douglas, were seated in the nightclub, causing their drinks to spill.

This, in turn, led to a heated exchange between Cox and the defendant. Cox allegedly threw a drink in the defendant’s face and physically assaulted him.

Subsequently, he left the club but returned shortly after and continued to verbally abuse the defendant.

In response, the defendant retrieved his licensed firearm and allegedly discharged several rounds in Cox’s direction, resulting in three gunshot wounds to Cox’s abdomen and injuring his girlfriend on the right hand.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) withdrew the attempted murder charge against Balgobin following a request made by the virtual complainant, Conway.

However, regarding the felonious wounding allegation, the defence pointed to several evidential shortcomings—arguments that Magistrate Mohammed ultimately found convincing.

Attorney-at-law Bernard DaSilva, representing Balgobin, argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against his client.

Central to his argument was the fact that the virtual complainant (Douglas) never testified to having seen Balgobin shoot her or even possessing a firearm. Instead, he said she merely stated she had been shot in the arm, but could not identify who pulled the trigger.

The defence counsel submitted that no ballistic evidence linked Balgobin’s firearm—still in police possession—to the shooting.

According to him, the only shell casing recovered was tested solely to determine calibre and did not match Balgobin’s weapon.

The defence also criticised the police investigation, pointing out that there was no attempt to determine whether the accused’s gun had been fired recently, no ballistic testing on bullet fragments (if any were recovered), and no clarification on whether other shooters were present.

Further, Balgobin’s attorney argued that compounding the gaps in the State’s case was the absence of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage from the crime scene.

DaSilva also raised questions about the credibility of the medical evidence presented.

He said that two different versions of a medical certificate were submitted, with inconsistencies in dates and content.

Under cross-examination, he pointed out that the examining doctor admitted she had no formal training in ballistics and could not distinguish between entry and exit wounds.

He therefore contended that the prosecution’s case was speculative, disjointed and lacked the necessary evidentiary support to proceed.

Magistrate Mohammed, presiding at the Bartica Magistrate’s Court, concluded that the standard of proof required for a prima facie case had not been met.

As a result, he upheld the defence’s no-case submission and dismissed the wounding charge against Balgobin.

He had initially pleaded not guilty to the charge. While awaiting the outcome of the case, Balgobin had been released on $800,000 bail, with the condition that he surrender his passport.