Anand Narine, ex-husband of Babita Sarjou, wept and begged for mercy when he was yesterday sentenced to 22 and a half years in prison for her murder.
His co-accused, Darrol Ponton called ‘Yankee’, was sentenced to 18 and a half years for the same crime. The decision was handed down by Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall who described their actions of killing the young woman and then burying her body in a shallow grave as “depraved.”
However, the six years that the two spent behinds bar on remand will be deducted from their given sentences.
Yesterday’s sentencing finally delivered some justice for Sarjou’s family some 12 years after she went missing on November 10, 2010. Her remains were found in a shallow grave in Narine’s Seaforth Street, Campbell-ville, Georgetown home in 2016. Narine along with Compton called were subsequently charged with the woman’s gruesome murder and last month, after initially denying the offence, the two later changed their plea to guilty.
Both men wept profusely and begged for mercy but the judge remarked that she saw no need to give any, given the cruel and calculated nature of the crime.
Sarjou’s mother, Champa Seenarine, also wept during her victim impact statement where she spoke about missing her daughter and how the two men took her child’s life. She said she was heartbroken and in pain and she misses her daughter very much. “My daughter did not deserve to die like that, I miss her at this moment the two are before the courts and I am hoping to get justice in this case,” the weeping woman said.
Following the judge’s sentence, the prosecutor announced that based on her instructions, she was giving notice of the state’s intention to appeal. This prompted the judge to ask if such a notice was necessary as the state must do what it has to do and suggested such a notice was given because of the presence of the media.
The judge’s decision came after a considerable amount of time was spent on delivering psychiatric and probation reports and mitigating factors by the defence attorneys. An attempt by Narine’s lawyer to besmirch the character of Sarjou was noted by the court as it was pointed out that such a tactic was frowned upon.
Orchestrated
In sentencing Narine, Justice Morris-Ramlall pointed out that Sarjou was once his reputed wife and he orchestrated a plan to kill her and conceal her body thereby breaching the trust imposed by her and family members.
“A great deal of planning was involved, there was nothing impulsive about his actions. It is also horrifying that he executed his plan in the presence of his son. The deceased’s life was not only snuffed out through the commission of this murder but her body was unceremoniously conveyed to a concrete grave for several years. This certainly cannot be compared to the prison walls that the accused laments he is now languishing behind,” the judge declared in her ruling.
She noted as well that he played God by determining what was to be the deceased’s fate because of his disapproval of her interaction with him. And his actions not only robbed the family of a young and innocent life but his own son of his mother’s love.
In considering the victim impact statement and the probation report, the judge said she has also considered the nature and prevalence of “these kinds of atrocities against women in our society.”
“These are all aggravating circumstances, there is absolutely no mitigating factor discerned by the court. Women are not chattel, men do not own them. There is no justification for perpetuating violence against women. There was none for taking the life of this deceased,” the judge asserted.
She added that any attempt to justify or excuse it must be strongly disavowed.
And having taken into consideration all the above circumstances, the judge noted that in determining an appropriate sentence, she also considered, as she is required, certain comparable precedents.
Among the cases she cited was Small and Gopaul v the Director of Public Prosecutions – that case had to do with the killing of Queen’s College student, Neesa Gopaul. Her mother Sharima-Gopaul, was initially sentenced to 106 years in jail. Her lover, Jarvis Small, called ‘Barry’, was sentenced to 96 years. The two appealed their sentences which were reduced by the Court of Appeal to 45 years each. However, they later moved to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) where Small was eventually freed and Gopaul’s sentence was reduced to 25 years.
Neesa Gopaul’s body was found inside of a suitcase submerged in creek on the Linden-Soesdyke Highway.
The judge pointed out that the CCJ found that a just and appropriate sentence for the mother was 30 years imprisonment with no eligibility of parole before 15 years served and from that amount the time of 5 years had to be discounted for the period spent on remand.
She also pointed out that the CCJ found that a reasonable starting point to establish a sentence for the crime was 15 to 20 years.
‘Taking into consideration the factors relevant to the offence and the comparable precedent, I believe that in the circumstances of this case an appropriate starting point in relation to the number one accused is twenty-five years imprisonment,” the judge posited.
But in considering the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge pointed out that Narine was Sarjou’s former spouse and they shared a child. There was a relationship of trust and responsibility and he demonstrated lack of concern for the welfare of the child both by committing the heinous act in his (the child’s) presence and by depriving him of his mother.
The judge also considered Narine’s motivation for the killing and also the disposal of the body. The public’s interest in denouncing and curbing intimate partner violence was also considered as a special circumstance and in which regard Justice Morris-Ramlall dismissed the contention of Narine’s lawyer that the matter did not possess a domestic violence element, calling it “misconceived.”
She pointed out that Narine was involved in a relationship with Sarjou and she was the mother of his child.
“Based on these aggravating factors relative to the accused, I believe that an uplift of five years is warranted and I therefore so impose,” the judge said.
As it related to mitigating factors the judge said she considered that he had a previous good record coupled with his expressions of remorse and acknowledgement of responsibility for his actions. She also considered the information regarding his conduct while in prison and his efforts towards rehabilitation.
“However, I do not consider these mitigating factors to be deserving of credit given the circumstance of this case. They are outweighed by the aggravating factors. No discount would therefore be made in relations to these mitigating factors,” the judge ruled.
She said however that she was required to consider whether a discount on the account of the guilty plea is appropriate. She pointed out that the basis for a discount on account of guilty plea is that it is helpful in many respects when someone guilty of an offence indicates willingness to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. It spares those most affected by the crime having to endure a trial and having to give evidence and reduces the time spent in bringing the case to conclusion. It also shortens the time between a crime being committed and sentence being passed.
Generally, she said, a discount of one third of the sentence is made on the account of a guilty plea. However, she noted that given the “egregious and exceptionally depraved nature of the offence,” she found that it was a fitting case for deviation from the usual one-third discount. She therefore discounted seven and a half years on the account of the guilty plea.
He was then sentenced Narine to 22 and a half years in prison from which time served would be discounted.
Hired gun
As it related to Ponton, the judge once again considered the nature of the offence and the circumstance under which it was committed.
She pointed out he was part of the plan orchestrated to kill Sarjou and conceal her body.
“He was a willing and active participant in every aspect in the execution of the plan. The plan was a detailed one. There is nothing about how the crime was committed that suggests that the number two accused acted without thinking as he would want to have us believe.”
She however, considered that he did not share a close relationship with the deceased nor was he related to her.
“He was effectively a hired gun and had no motive other than that of a financial nature for participating in the heinous act. Though he is equally culpable in law with the number one accused for the death of the deceased this is a mitigating factor relative to sentencing,” she explained.
Having considered both the mitigating and aggravating factors, Justice Morris-Ramlall pointed out that in determining an appropriate sentence, she considered the precedence she referenced in relation to Narine.
Having done so, she started Ponton’s sentence at 20 years in prison but added another five years since she considered that he demonstrated a lack of concern for the welfare of a young child both by committing the atrocious act in his presence as well as depriving him of his mother. The judge also considered the method of disposal of the body which he participated.
She also considered that he had a previous good record and acknowledged his expression of remorse and acknowledgement of his responsibility. She also considered his conduct in prison and his efforts towards rehabilitation.
“But again, as with the number one accused, I do not consider these mitigating factors to be deserving of credit. Given the circumstances of this case they are outweighed by the aggravating factors,” the judge said.
As in the case of Narine, the judge did not make the normal one third discount on the account of the guilty plea citing the same factors. She discounted six and a half years and sentenced him to 18 and a half years in prison from which, time on remand is to be discounted.
Defame
While the defence lawyers spoke highly of how their clients took responsibility and that they wept and begged Sarjou’s family and the court for mercy, the prosecution submitted that no such mercy should be shown. Further, Narine’s lawyer’s attempt to “defame” the deceased, as described by the prosecution, should be noted. The prosecution also dismissed Narine’s lawyer’s submission that the crime had nothing to do with domestic violence since the two were separated at the time of her murder. And the state was not surprised by the claim or remorse and the tears shed as this was only done after they became aware of the severity of the sentencing.
According to the prosecution, it was just part of their game or tactic so that the court would give a favourable sentence. It was pointed out that the offence occurred since in 2010 and the woman’s body was only found in 2016. And even though the two were questioned by the police in 2010, they denied any knowledge of her death. In fact Narine was the one who reported her missing to the police. And he concreted the ground where Sarjou’s body was buried to further hide the crime.
Their actions, the prosecution pointed out, did not demonstrate that they wanted to take responsibility for their actions. The prosecution also pointed out that the crime was committed while Narine’s four-old son was nearby and that he distracted his son while his mother’s motionless body lay in the back of the car,
It was on the eve of Diwali, on November 4, 2010 that Sarjou had left her Timehri home, having informed her family that after work she was going to view the annual motorcade with her estranged husband and their then four-year-old son.
She had promised she would be back home at around 9 that night. She was never seen or heard from again.
Her estranged husband, Narine, had faced intense scrutiny over her disappearance as there was a history of domestic violence in the relationship, which was evidenced by several reports made at the Kitty Police Station and the Timehri Police Station.
Narine was also charged with corrupting public morals after photographs in which the woman appeared half-naked were displayed around her place of employment in 2010.
In 2016, Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum had reopened the investigation into Sarjou’s disappearance and the police had made a major breakthrough in the case after the questioning of Narine and his accomplice.
Sarjou’s skeletal remains were unearthed at Narine’s Campbellville residence on May 22, 2016. Sarjou’s relatives later positively identified a pair of slippers, attire and undergarments that were found with the remains as her belongings and samples were taken for DNA testing.
Months later, DNA tests confirmed that the remains which were found were indeed those of Sarjou.
Narine had allegedly paid his accomplice $50,000 and promised him a trip to Trinidad in exchange for killing Sarjou. They allegedly dug the three-foot grave two days before she was killed.
