A PICTON, Laventille man was on Monday acquitted of a 2006 murder by a High Court judge who was presiding over his judge-only trial.

Justice Gail Gonzales discharged Stephen Cummings, also called Sprang, after finding him not guilty of the murder of Deolal “Selwyn” Ramnath on May 9, 2006 at Pensioners’ Quarters in Beetham Estate.

Cummings’s trial began on April 22 and was held virtually because of covid19 restrictions.

Ramnath was killed by a single gunshot to the head.

In his defence, Cummings denied killing Ramnath and said he was in Princes town at his uncle’s home at the time of the murder.

An autopsy by state pathologist Dr Eslyn Mc Donald–Burris said Deolal died from craniocerebral injuries and haemorrhage owing to a gunshot wound to the head.

Cummings was arrested on February 18, 2008 in Dan Kelly, Laventille.

Prior to a verification exercise, Cummings allegedly told police when cautioned, “Boss, I have nothing to fear,” and 21 months after the shooting, when he was identified by Tony, as “Sprang,” he said “Me eh know nothing bout tha."

Prosecutors Stacy Laloo Chong and Kezia Grey Birkette called ten witnesses in the case. The evidence of six was formally admitted and the notes of evidence of one witness in a previous trial was also allowed by the judge.

Tony Ramnath, who was deemed hostile at the trial, changed his testimony from pointing to Cummings as the killer, to saying he did not see him do it.

He testified he went to Pensioner’s Quarters to play dice when his nephew was killed.

He said when he saw Cummings, he picked up his money and demonstrated how he pulled his nephew, drew the gun from his waist and shot Deolal in the head.

In cross-examination by Cummings’s attorney Larry Williams, Ramnath denied he saw Cummings shoot his nephew.

He said he told the police that because he heard people say the man who shot his nephew looked like Cummings. Ramnath maintained he kept up his story because he wanted justice for his nephew, but had told his family he did not see Cummings shoot Deolal. He also said he was told by his nephew’s mother, he should stick to the statement he gave the police.

He maintained what he told police was untrue. He was questioned about an incident which allegedly took place during the week when he gave his evidence-in-chief to when he was cross-examined of two men visiting him, which led to him changing his evidence.

The judge admitted to not knowing what to make of his change of story, but noted while Ramnath was confident when he first gave evidence, he was “visibly scared” one week later.

“There was no direct evidence of what actually transpired in the week between him giving evidence in chief and cross-examination, but it was clear that something had happened.

“I found myself in the position of not knowing what version of the incident to accept.”

However, Gonzales said because he gave two versions she had to view his evidence with caution.

“While I cannot get his animated account out of my mind, in treating his evidence with caution, I cann