Witchcraft Claims Surface in Trial
Awitness in the Nausori Highlands murder trial claims that witchcraft was performed on one of the victims’ as it was recorded on one of the deceased’s phone.
The audio recording of the alleged performance was found on the phone of the deceased, Nirmal Kumar. This was the testimony of state prosecution’s 52nd witness, Rajesh Kumar.
He is the older brother of the deceased Nirmal Kumar.
The recording was presented in court on Tuesday night, the 11th day of the trial before judge Justice Thushara Rajasinghe at the High Court in Lautoka.
Rajesh told the court that the audio recording was about witchcraft rituals being performed over Nirmal’s wife Usha (deceased) by the murder accused Muhammed Raheesh Isoof.
Isoof (herein referred to as Kamal) is alleged to have murdered Nirmal Kumar, 63, his wife Usha Devi, 54, their daughter Nileshni Kajal, 34, and Ms Kajal’s daughters Sanah Singh, 11, Samarah Singh, 8 at Nausori Highlands in August 2019. He is also charged with one count of attempted murder of Samaira Kumar who was found abandoned near the bodies of five deceased persons.
The State prosecutors are Semi Babitu, Taitusi Tuenuku, and Prenika Lata from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The defence counsel is Iqbal Khan from Iqbal Khan and Associates.
TRIAL DAY 11 (CONTINUATION): Prosecution Witness 49: Senior Scientific Officer Naomi Tuitoga
Ms Tuitoga is a senior scientific officer based at the Forensic Bio and DNA Lab at the Police Academy in Nasova, Suva.
During the investigation of this case, Ms Tuitoga had overseen the analysis of forensic exhibits and the DNA samples that were submitted for examination.
It was highlighted in court by Ms Tuitoga that there were three DNA samples found on the prayer items from the crime scene that were tendered as evidence. She had testified that two of the DNA were of unidentified and unknown persons while the other was of Isoof.
Under cross-examination Mr Khan, he asked the witness if she had enquired about who were the other unknown and unidentified individuals whose DNA was also found on the items.
Ms Tuitoga said the Crime Scene Investigating team was aware about procedures and would have obtained their DNA samples for comparisons if they had known the other individuals.
Mr Khan asked whether in this case, the CSI team had submitted any further samples. Ms Tuitoga said there were no further samples given to the Lab except the deceased persons and of Isoof.
Mr Khan also asked that a mixed
DNA profile be obtained in which the major contributor was unknown individuals while the minor was similar to the accused but not the same. Ms Tuitoga said yes.
Mr Khan asked the witness if she found out about the other two unknown contributors.
Ms Tuitoga said no.
Prosecution Witness 29 (Recalled): Corporal Savenaca Siwatibau
The State prosecution recalled the witness above for clarification on the extraction of the audio recording which was found in Nirmal’s mobile phone.
Cpl Siwatibau told the court that he had conducted the extraction of Nirmal’s mobile phone and extracted all contents from the mobile phone including call logs, audios and photos.
He told the court that after the extraction was done, the supply for the particular extraction would be given to the investigating officer upon his or her request.
He said the whole extraction of a mobile phone could make up of 10,000 to 15,000 pages hence only the requested information is given to the investigating officer.
Cpl Siwatibau told the court that he had extracted the audio recording from Nirmal’s mobile phone, however, he did not hear the recording before the extraction. He said the recording had a date of August 11, 2019, and a time of 1.18pm.
Prosecution Witness 50: Principle Scientific Officer Werebauinona
Miliana
Ms Werebauinona is a principal scientific officer at the Fiji Police Force Forensic Lab based at the Fiji Police Academy in Nasova, Suva. She gave evidence in court about her findings during the examination of the toxicology.
She testified in court that she had prepared a toxicology report where a chemical profile was made of seven items that were handed to her by Inspector Sakiusa Jitoko.
She said those were a tomato sauce bottle containing an orange
liquid, a white bottle containing clear liquid, another bottle containing clear liquid, an empty bottle, a plastic bag containing a tomato paste bottle with salt-like substance, a juice bottle containing clear liquid, and a white bottle containing a clear liquid.
She said the items were subjected to three tests which were conductivity test where they measure the evidence of heat, PH which gave an indicator of whether the sample was acidic, neutral, or basic, and pesticide residue test which tells the amount of pesticide present in the samples.
Ms Werebauinona told the court although the test gave information on the amount of pesticide, it, however, did not give the information of which pesticide it would be.
She said the machine picked chlorophenol which had a toxic effect as it was used to kill bacteria in water treatments.
She further told the court that she had run tests on Nirmal, Usha, Nileshni, Sanah, and Samarah’s urine, blood, stomach content and body tissues for pesticide tests.
She said all their results came as zero for blood alcohol, urine was negative for illicit drugs and the stomach content which had gastric content was tested positive for pesticide residue.
Under cross-examination, Mr Khan asked the witness whether the machines on which the tests were conducted had any printouts. Ms Werebauinona said no. Mr Khan then asked the witness that apart from her word of mouth, she had nothing in writing to show the results of the machine.
Ms Werebauinona said yes and that the readings of the machines were recorded as the analysis of the outcome of the tests.
Mr Khan then asked the witness what pesticide was discovered when they ran the tests.
Ms Werebauinona said the instrument they used to test did not give the name of the pesticide but gave a general indicator.
Prosecution Witness 51: Woman Detective Constable (WDC) Shital Naidu
WDC Naidu is based at the Crime Branch at Lautoka Police Station.
She testified in the court of the translation she had made of the audio recording found in Nirmal’s mobile phone.
She told the court that she made the translation on December 13, 2021, and confirmed to the court that she translated the audio recording to the best of her knowledge and abilities.
Ms Lata asked the witness if she was able to tell what the conversation in that audio recording was about.
WDC Naidu claimed in court that it was of rituals taking place whereby two males and two females were involved, and witchcraft rituals were being done.
Under csoss-examination Mr Khan asked the witness who had asked her to translate the audio recording. WDC Naidu told the court that the DPP’s office did.
WDC Naidu said she was not aware of the time and dates of the audio recording.
Prosecution Witness 52: Rajesh Kumar
Mr Kumar is Nirmal’s elder brother and lived in the same compound as Nirmal. He told the court that he was also neighbour’s with Isoof as Isoof’s house was located on the right-hand side to theirs.
He said he had frequent conversations with Isoof and had known him since 1972.
He was called by the state prosecution to identify the voices in the audio recording which was found in Nirmal’s mobile phone.
The recording was played in court, and Ms Lata had asked Mr Kumar to verify and identify who all were talking in the recording.
Mr Kumar told the court that he was approached by the Police officers for his brother’s murder case investigation, and they wanted him to identify the voices.
He said he was called to the Namaka
Police Station and asked to listen to the audio recording from a computer.
He said when he first heard that recording, it was about a ritual taking place. He further told the court that he was able to recognise Usha’s voice, Kajal’s voice, Sanah, and Samarah’s voices, the little baby crying, and Nirmal and Kamal’s (Isoof) voices.
When the audio recording was played in court, Mr Kumar reaffirmed and identified the individuals. Ms Lata asked Mr Kumar to translate the conversation. Mr Kumar alleged that the recording was about witchcraft as they had found something in a red piece of cloth.
He said the two talking were Isoof and Usha and that Usha spoke as if she was possessed and Isoof ’s voice also sounded very different.
Cross-Examination:
Mr Khan asked the witness of when he came to know of Nirmal and his family’s death.
Mr Kumar told the court that he was in India with his family on a trip for religious prayers when he received a text message informing him of the incident.
Mr Khan asked the witness if he had heard of witchcraft being done at Nausori Highlands. Mr Kumar said after he had heard the recording, he heard the witchcraft taking place, but he did not know where it was being performed.
Mr Khan put to the witness that Isoof was not present with the deceased family at the time when the audio recording was done.
Mr Kumar said he was present as he could recognise his voice in the recording.
Mr Khan then put to the witness that he was mistaken and that he picked his client as he was trying to blame him for the family’s death.
Mr Kumar said he was not blaming Isoof, but he could hear his voice in the audio recording and recognised it well.
Mr Khan asked the witness whether he had performed witchcraft. Mr Kumar said he did not as he was a religious person and always prayed at the temple.
Mr Khan then asked the witness that since he did not know anything about witchcraft, how he could tell that witchcraft was being performed in the audio recording.
Mr Kumar said it was because of how Usha was allegedly possessed and spoke about something found in a piece of red cloth.
Re-Examination:
The state prosecution asked the witness how he was able to tell that witchcraft was being practiced.
Mr Kumar said the way Usha was speaking and asking for kava and clapping of hands, anyone was able to tell that witchcraft was being performed.
Justice Rajasinghe asked the witness to explain the two voices and identify if Usha and Isoof were in their normal voice or different. Mr Kumar told the court that their voices were very different.