Mario Mendy
The High Court, presided over by Justice ZN Mboob, has sentenced Mario Mendy to life imprisonment following his conviction for the murder of Maram Jaw. The judgment, delivered after extensive proceedings, concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Mendy was charged with a single count of murder under Section 187 of the Criminal Code, stemming from the fatal stabbing of Maram Jaw on May 11, 2021, in Karewan Village. He pleaded not guilty to the charge during his initial court appearance on March 8, 2022.
The prosecution presented a total of 13 witnesses and tendered four exhibits to substantiate its case. Key evidence included the recovery of the deceased’s body behind her bed, a blood-stained pestle found at the scene, and a bag containing the deceased’s belongings, including a shoe stained with blood, discovered under a bed at a witness’s residence.
Central to the prosecution’s case was a DNA analysis report (Exhibit Q), which confirmed with 99.999% certainty that bloodstains found on the pestle and shoe matched the DNA of the deceased’s mother, strongly indicating the blood belonged to the victim.
The defense challenged the admissibility and credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, asserting that the burden of proof remained entirely with the State. Defense counsel argued there was no direct eyewitness testimony linking Mendy to the crime and that the circumstantial evidence was inconsistent and inconclusive. The defense further claimed that another individual, identified as PW3, was last seen with the victim and that testimonies placed Mendy elsewhere at the time of the incident.
Additional concerns raised by the defense included discrepancies in witness statements regarding visible blood on the accused’s shoe and procedural issues surrounding the collection and handling of DNA samples. The defense argued that the DNA evidence was flawed and inadmissible, and ultimately contended that the prosecution had failed to establish the elements of murder, including malice aforethought.
In response, the prosecution maintained that the totality of the evidence—including the DNA analysis and the accused’s behavior—established Mendy’s guilt. The State pointed to Mendy’s false statements about his identity, aggression toward a key witness (PW1), and lack of a plausible explanation for the presence of the victim’s blood on his shoe. The prosecution cited relevant legal provisions and case law to support the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness accounts.
In her ruling, Justice Mboob emphasized that the critical question before the court was whether the prosecution had proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. After reviewing all submissions and evidence, the court found that the prosecution had met this burden.
Justice Mboob stated that the forensic evidence linking the blood on the accused’s shoe to the deceased was compelling and that Mendy failed to provide a credible alternative explanation. The court concluded that the killing was committed with malice aforethought, fulfilling all the legal elements required for a murder conviction.
In determining the sentence, Justice Mboob considered the gravity and violent nature of the offense, the irreparable harm caused to the victim’s family, and the broader societal impact. While noting the defense’s plea in mitigation—which highlighted Mendy’s youth, lack of prior convictions, and potential for rehabilitation—the court ultimately exercised its discretion under Section 188 of the Criminal Code.
Justice ZN Mboob stated that, “in the exercise of the Court’s discretion and in light of the totality of the circumstances, I am persuaded that the interests of justice are better served by the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment.”
Consequently, Mario Mendy was sentenced to life imprisonment rather than the death penalty under section 188 of the Criminal Code. The judgment concluded by noting that “The parties reserved the right to appeal.”