Durban - The State on Wednesday argued that murder accused Mark Donovan Ramdass knew exactly how he killed his girlfriend and all the events afterwards, but lied to the court about his loss of memory.
Ramdass had pleaded not guilty to the fatal strangling of his girlfriend, Ashika Singh, in their Merebank home in March 2014.
At the start of the trial, he said in his plea statement that he was “convinced” no one but him could have committed the murder; however, he did not remember the crime.
He said he drank alcohol and smoked crack cocaine on the day of the murder. He also pleaded not guilty to robbery with aggravating circumstances. A cellphone, a GPS device and a set of keys were reported stolen.
According to his plea statement, Ramdass claimed he must have taken these items in the midst of his high levels of intoxication and confusion.
Singh, 35, was found strangled in her bedroom of the home she shared with her mother and Ramdass, and had a plastic bag over her head.
A courtesy car that had been on loan to Singh was found in the Point area after the murder, and Ramdass handed himself over to police two days later.
He has been in custody since March 2014.
On Wednesday, State advocate Krishen Shah told Durban High Court Judge Johan Ploos van Amstel that he doubted Ramdas’s loss of memory.
Shah also questioned the murder accused’s level of intoxication, arguing that there was no evidence presented on the quantity of alcohol or narcotics Ramdass allegedly consumed before, during and after the murder.
He found it difficult to believe that Ramdass, in his intoxicated state, was able to perform complicated tasks such as those required for Ramdass to leave the house after the murder and drive the hired car.
“He had to find the car keys as well as the house keys and GPS before leaving the house. He had to lock the house, unlock the car, start it, manually open the gate, reverse out, close the gate and jump over the wall to get out to the car and drive off,” explained Shah.
“This was classic avoidance behaviour. He wanted to get away. He knew what he did and wanted to get away from the deceased,” he said.
Shah argued that if Ramdass did not know what he was doing, he would have left everything wide open and driven off.
“His conduct was not that of someone who did not know what he was doing,” he said.
Shah also argued Ramdass resented Singh, admitting so while under cross-examination. Ramdass claimed Singh treated him like a child - he could not spend his own money, had to report to her and she would apparently buy his drugs.
Advocate Mondli Qulo, representing Ramdass, had told the court his client may have committed the crimes because of emotional stress due to his childhood, combined with his intoxicated state.
He also argued Ramdass and Singh had a volatile relationship, claiming that Singh was physical towards Ramdass and that she had a problem with her temper.
Qulo said Ramdass’s amnesia was one of the factors of his defence, and that his client had a lack of capacity.
He did not intend killing Singh, and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. “He committed this act due to high levels of intoxication,” he argued.
Qulo also felt the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both Ramdass and Singh’s families were in court on Wednesday, and have been present throughout the trial. Judgment is expected next week.