By Kexx Sanneh
The Bakau High Court, presided over by Justice ZN Mboob, has sentenced Mario Mendy to life imprisonment for the murder of Maram Jaw, who was fatally stabbed in Karewan Village on May 11, 2021. The ruling, delivered after a contentious trial, marks the conclusion of a case gripping the local community.
Mendy faced a single count of murder under Section 187 of the Criminal Code. The prosecution alleged that Mendy unlawfully caused Jaw’s death by stabbing her with a knife. Mendy pleaded not guilty on March 8, 2022, setting the stage for a trial hinged on forensic evidence and conflicting testimonies.
The prosecution presented a robust case, calling 13 witnesses and submitting four exhibits to prove Mendy’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Key evidence included the discovery of Jaw’s body behind her bed, a blood-stained pestle found at the scene, and a bag containing Jaw’s belongings, including a blood-stained shoe, found under the bed of a witness’s daughter. The cornerstone of the prosecution’s case was a DNA analysis report (Exhibit Q), which confirmed with 99.999% probability that bloodstains on the pestle and shoe matched Jaw’s DNA, linking Mendy to the crime scene.
The prosecution argued that the evidence, including Mendy’s deceitful behavior, lies about his identity, and aggression toward a witness, demonstrated malice aforethought. They cited Section 11(b) of the Evidence Act 1994, emphasizing the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct witnesses. The prosecution also invoked the “doctrine of last seen,” noting that Mendy was the last person seen with Jaw and failed to explain the presence of her blood on his shoes.
The defense, however, mounted a vigorous challenge, arguing that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for a murder conviction. Citing Section 144(1) of the Evidence Act, they contended that the prosecution must prove death, causation, unlawfulness, and malice aforethought—any failure entitling Mendy to acquittal. The defense highlighted the lack of eyewitness testimony linking Mendy to the crime and argued that another witness, PW3, was last seen with Jaw, undermining the “last seen” doctrine. They also pointed to inconsistencies in witness accounts, particularly regarding visible blood on Mendy’s shoe, and questioned the credibility of PW12, a forensic expert who allegedly contradicted himself during cross-examination.
The defense further challenged the DNA evidence, arguing that the forensic process was flawed. They claimed that samples were collected after the case reached court, without defense oversight or court supervision, constituting an abuse of process. The defense deemed Exhibit Q inadmissible under Section 94(3) of the Evidence Act and urged the court to rely on cross-examination testimony that no blood was visibly present on Mendy’s shoe.
Justice Mboob, in her ruling, identified the central question: whether the prosecution proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt. After reviewing the evidence, she concluded that the DNA analysis and Mendy’s failure to account for Jaw’s blood on his shoes pointed to his guilt. The judge emphasized that the prosecution demonstrated malice aforethought, supported by Mendy’s conduct and the violent nature of the crime.
In sentencing, Justice Mboob described murder as “one of the most heinous offences known to our law,” noting that Section 188 of the Criminal Code allows for the death penalty. However, considering Mendy’s lack of prior convictions, youth, and potential for rehabilitation, as argued by the defense, the court exercised discretion and imposed a life sentence. The judge underscored the deliberate and violent nature of the act, the breach of trust, and the profound harm to Jaw’s family and community.
Both parties reserved the right to appeal the judgment.
