Trial for the murder of Rupert Berney Appasamy |27 May 2022

Lead investigating officer cross-examined by defence

• Prosecution rests after submission of agreed facts statement

The lead investigating officer was the only witness in court yesterday, being cross-examined by the defence in the ongoing case for the murder of Rupert Berney Appasamy, before he rested its case, following the submission of an agreed facts statement.

A statement of facts was agreed to by both parties to the lawsuit and submitted to the court in writing following the unavailability of several witnesses due to various reasons.

The investigating officer – a detective sergeant from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) within the Seychelles Police Force – was cross-examined by defence attorney Olivier Chang-Leng who is representing Ken Jean-Charles, the first accused in the case.

It is to note that the decomposed body of Appasamy was found buried in a shallow grave at Bougainville, Takamaka on September 23, 2021.

The case is being presided over by Justice Mohan Niranjit Burhan, while Corrine Rose and Georges Thachet are the prosecution lawyers.

The second accused in the case, namely Sindu Parekh, is being represented by lawyer Tony Juliette.

To begin his cross-examination, Chang-Leng questioned the witness on the Investigation Diary which is used to record the various proceedings during the investigation.

The witness clarified that the document is used to record relevant actions taken during the case, rather than information as stated by Chang-Leng in his introduction.

She also explained that during investigations, it not only the investigating officer who makes entries, but other officers involved in the case as well.

The witness told the court that she was present when Jean-Charles was located and arrested at Roche Caïman, but she was not the arresting officer, therefore any entries regarding the arrest in the investigation diary was not made by her.

When asked on why Jean-Charles was arrested on suspicion of murder at a moment when the body of Appasamy was not yet found, the witness noted that based on irregularities in various statements taken from former accused in the case, they became suspicious and based on the power assigned to them by the law, she personally gave the instruction to arrest Jean-Charles.

Chang-Leng further challenged the witness on various discrepancies in the investigation diary, especially in time, content of witness’ statements, especially those of police officers who previously provided evidence in the case.

The defence attorney also questioned the witness regarding a search carried out at Jean-Charles’ residence at Le Niol, based on information that there was a possibility of drugs being present at the house.

He challenged the witness on the reason for the drug search, while his client was arrested under suspicion of murder.

Again, the witness referred to the power invested in the police to carry out search, without a warrant, in the event of high drug suspicion.

When asked why the search was not entered in the investigation diary, the witness explained that it was not in relation to the case, but was rather drug-related, based on information gathered.

She added that all the relevant information regarding the search can be found in the occurrence book which is the journal kept at a police station of events required to be recorded therein on a daily basis.

The witness was also questioned regarding her presence at a search on Jean-Charles’ pick-up truck, something which Chang-Leng said was not recorded in the investigation diary.

As answer, the witness explained that is normal since the search was carried out by the Scientific Support and Crime Record Bureau (SSCRB), and not the CID.

She said her presence at the scene was purely based on the fact that the accused was in the custody of the CID and he had the right to attend the search of his vehicle which was in the custody of the SSCRB.

When asked about the five cell phones seized from the accused during the course of the investigation, the witness told the court that she was only aware of the two which was seized on the day of the arrest in her presence.

Chang-Leng also questioned the witness regarding her knowledge on the drug addiction of one of the former suspects in the case, asking whether she thought the evidence given by him at that time was credible.

To that, the witness clearly explained that the former accused did not provide the police with evidence, but rather information which when worked upon provided evidence, including the burial location of Appasamy.

Regarding the crowbar which was allegedly used to assault Appasamy, the witness told the court the former accused in the case was showed a variety of tools and identified the crowbar out of the bunch.

She said the former accused was not shown a crowbar and asked to identify.

Again on the integrity of the information provided by the former witness in the case, the witness reminded the court that the outcome of the investigation was not based solely on information gathered from him, but was mainly based on investigating work including CCTV footages, phone extractions, and report of the pathologist, among others.

The witness was not cross-examined by the other defence lawyer in the case.

The case will continue today, and following the rest of the prosecution yesterday, the defence will have the opportunity to put on evidence if it so chooses.

Roland Duval