Defence questions crime scene evidence in double murder trial

Discrepancies between an accused man's account of where an elderly couple were lying and photographs taken at their home have been challenged by the defence in a double murder trial at the High Court in Lautoka.

Osea Mataitoga, 27, is standing trial before Justice Lee James Burney over the deaths of Sesha Reddy and his wife, Mirdu Chandra, near Lawai, Sigatoka, on February 2, 2021.

Mataitoga faces two counts of murder and one count of robbery.

He is represented by defence lawyer Kemueli Verebalavu, while Michelle Lomaloma appears for the State.

During proceedings, Mr Verebalavu told the court that Mataitoga had entered the house for a second time to commit theft and had not expected anyone to be inside one of the rooms.

He said Mataitoga opened a door and found Chandra inside.

Chandra began shouting when she saw him, and the encounter unfolded within seconds.

The defence maintained that both victims were still breathing when Mataitoga left the house.

Mr Verebalavu also questioned the position of Chandra's body, arguing that it differed from what was shown in photographs taken at the scene.

“When he left, the wife was lying in a certain position. The wife's head was facing the door and when the pictures and photographs were taken, she was laying the other way around,” he told the court.

Confession and alleged involvement

The prosecution's case relies heavily on Mataitoga's confession, which allegedly details an arrangement to kill the couple involving a man identified in court as Rajneel.

Justice Burney questioned why Rajneel had not been charged, given the allegations against him in the confession.

The court heard that the prosecution had limited independent physical evidence supporting Rajneel's alleged involvement.

The State also told the court that the couple had previously reported Rajneel over alleged financial misconduct, which reportedly led to his dismissal.

The prosecution presented this as a possible motive.

The court also discussed the need to establish Rajneel's whereabouts, with Ms Lomaloma expected to contact him to confirm whether he was in the country.

Cause of death disputed

Another key issue is whether the injuries inflicted by Mataitoga caused the couple's deaths.

The prosecution alleges that Mataitoga intended to kill the couple, while the defence is expected to argue that his actions did not amount to murder and that a possible manslaughter verdict should be considered.

The court heard that decomposition had made it difficult for the pathologist to determine the exact cause of death.

The injuries identified included severe head trauma consistent with blunt-force injuries.

The defence argued that the medical evidence did not conclusively establish the cause of death.

It maintained that Mataitoga believed the couple were still alive when he left the house.

The pathologist is expected to give evidence today to assist the court in examining the cause of death and the injuries sustained by the victims.

Both sides are expected to address whether the evidence supports murder or the lesser offence of manslaughter.