By Hawa Amara
Presiding judge in the murder trial of Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) staff, Fatmata Finda Bockari, Justice Sam Margai yesterday adjourned the matter to 30 April, 2014, for ruling following the address of the prosecution and defense counsels respectively.
Bockari is alleged to have murdered her late husband, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Hassan Samuel Bangura last year after an altercation between the spouses.
According to prosecuting counsel A.G.M. Bockarie, relies on the testimony of prosecution witnesses (PWs) for a conviction, citing the testimony of PW1 (Isha Bangura) that the accused was seen with a knife in her hand and heard saying “Ar don chuck am” [I have stabbed him] and that by the time the witness went in search of on ASP Teddy Kargbo the accused had disappeared.
He said the alleged utterance by the accused was confirmed the PW5 (Dr. Owizz Koroma) the pathologist, that the cause of death was homicidal not accidental or suicidal.
Counsel Bockarie stated that the piece of evidence by PW1 that saw she saw the accused on top of the deceased with a knife in hand and that she uttered the words of stabbing the deceased was never challenged during cross-examination by the defense counsel, thus it remains uncontested.
He added that pathologist attributed the death to homicide with malice, noting that the fatal stab affected the chest cavity which led to the death of deceased.
He said the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW1 and PW5 to support the element of the offence charged.
He said police investigator, Detective Police Constable 7681 Kargbo H.S., attached to the Criminal Investigation Department at Congo Cross Police Station, had testified that on Saturday 26 May, 2012, ASP Teddy Kargbo brought in a male corpse and reported a case of murder.
He submitted that the deceased died the very day he was stabbed by the accused, which was confirmed by Dr. Owizz Koroma.
He concluded that the prosecution relied on the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses in court, especially PW1 and Pw5 and urged the judge to consider all the evidence adduced in court as the prosecution has proved the element of evidence against the accused.
He also urged the Jurors to return the verdict of the offence charged against the accused person as the evidence of the pathologist showed that the act of the accused person was homicidal.
In his reply, defence counsel H.M. Gevao, contended that the prosecution has woefully failed to elicit the ingredient of proving the accused person guilty.
He stated that the prosecution provided five witnesses and only one eye witness, although the entire testimony of the eye witness failed to adduce all evidence that she had seen the accused stab the deceased.
He said that during cross-examination, the eye witness did not indicate that she saw the accused stab the deceased, rather the answer by the witness was indicative of a denial statement by the accused, which is in exhibit B1 to 34.
He posited that the law is clear that any doubt in an offence must favour the accused person, and that the prosecution deliberately refused to show the intension of the accused to stab the deceased.
He said exhibit A1 showed that the wound on the deceased was on the abdomen and not on the chest and that the cause of death could not have been as result of injury in the chest.
He urged the Jurors not to return a guilty verdict as his client did not stab the deceased.