Donovan Mark Ramdass was acquitted of murder, despite his own confession that no one but him could have committed the murder of Ashika Singh.
|||Durban - The family of Ashika Singh has labelled the acquittal of Donovan Mark Ramdass - who stood trial for her murder - as “a slap in our faces by the justice system”.
Ramdass was acquitted by the Durban High Court on Friday.
The family’s spokesman, Naresh Rampersad, told the Daily News that at worst they expected Ramdass to be convicted of culpable homicide because there had been overwhelming evidence against him.
This included his own confession that no one but him could have committed the murder, despite not remembering killing Singh.
Rampersad said the family requested that state advocate Krishen Shah to institute appeal procedures.
The State’s inability to prove beyond reasonable doubt that murder accused Ramdass had a motive to kill his girlfriend, Singh, 35, led to his acquittal by Judge Johan Ploos van Amstel.
In his judgment, Ploos van Amstel said he was satisfied that it was Ramdass who strangled Singh in March 2014. However, because the State could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ramdass had acted in a criminal capacity, the accused was acquitted of murdering Singh.
The judge said Ramdass, who had drunk excessively and smoked crack cocaine on the night he killed his girlfriend, had been too drunk to have criminal capacity. Ramdass had claimed he could not remember killing his girlfriend because he had alcohol-induced amnesia.
Ploos van Amstel said it was mere speculation that the couple had arguments over money for Ramdass’s drugs, and that Singh’s strong and controlling personality could have led to him murdering her.
He said there was no evidence to support these motives.
“No motive was established, even as a reasonable possibility. I am not able to find him untruthful.
“It was not my impression that he was faking his ability to remember events,” said Ploos van Amstel.
The judge said Ramdass could not remember what he had done and did not attempt to avoid those who tried to contact him - a cousin who had called him - asking of his whereabouts, and that when he was told Singh was dead he had been genuinely surprised.
In earlier testimonies, the Ramdass family had testified that he was a humble guy who would not kill a fly, and Singh’s mother had also testified that they had been a happy couple who had the odd argument, but nothing out the ordinary.
State advocate Shah had said he doubted Ramdass’s loss of memory and questioned his level of intoxication.
He said he found it difficult to believe Ramdass had been able to undertake difficult tasks such as find the car and house keys, locking the house, unlocking and starting the car, manually opening the gate, reversing out, closing the gate, jumping over the wall to get to the car, and driving off.
“His conduct was not that of someone who did not know what he was doing,” Shah had argued.
Jay Ganesh, a relative of Singh, said what Ramdass had done was an injustice and deserved to be punished and he should not have walked free.
“You can do anything and still walk free with our justice system. So what difference does it make?” he said outside court.
Daily News