The High Court trial of a man accused of murdering Dunedin businessman Gurjit Singh has entered its final stages, with the Crown alleging a clear trail of lies, DNA evidence, and motive, while the defence insists the case is built on flawed forensic assumptions and speculation.
The accused, known only as Rajinder, is standing trial for the murder of Singh, who was discovered dead on the lawn of his home in January last year. Singh had been stabbed more than 40 times in what prosecutors have described as a brutal and determined attack.
Crown Alleges Trail of Deception
In closing arguments, Crown prosecutor Richard Smith told the jury that Rajinder repeatedly lied to police and left behind decisive physical evidence at the crime scene. He said forensic testing revealed that blood found in and around Singh’s home was 500,000 million times more likely to belong to Rajinder than to a random person.
“His blood and hair at the scene. His hair in the victim’s hands. His injury and the thumb of the glove left at the scene,” Smith told the court. He also highlighted that Rajinder had purchased items including gloves, a knife, and a neck gaiter the day before the killing.
Smith further alleged that Rajinder initially denied even knowing where Singh lived, yet phone records showed he had searched for directions to Singh’s house multiple times in the weeks leading up to the murder and again on the night it occurred. The chosen route followed back roads, suggesting an attempt to avoid detection.
Injuries Under Scrutiny
Rajinder’s explanation for a cut on his hand also came under intense scrutiny. He initially told police the injury was from a chainsaw accident but later changed his story to a bicycle crash. Medical experts disputed both versions, stating the wound was more consistent with contact from a sharp object such as a knife or glass.
A doctor testified that there were no abrasions, bruises, or grazing typically expected from a gravel fall. Smith argued that the injury likely occurred during a struggle with Singh as the victim tried to defend himself from the attack.
In addition to the hand injury, Rajinder allegedly failed to disclose significant bruising on his abdomen and hip during police interviews.
Motive Linked to Personal Rejection
The Crown also presented a motive rooted in personal rejection. Singh’s wife was due to arrive from India shortly after the murder-the same woman who had earlier rejected a marriage proposal from Rajinder. Additionally, Singh had declined Rajinder’s earlier proposal to marry his sister.
Smith suggested these rejections could have triggered jealousy and resentment strong enough to motivate the attack. He described the killing as “brutal and personal,” asserting that the attacker knew Singh well and chased him out of his own home.
Defence Rejects Crown Narrative
Defence lawyer Anne Stevens KC strongly rejected the Crown’s theory, stating there was no credible motive and that Rajinder had consistently denied killing Singh. She emphasised that DNA evidence reflects probability, not certainty.
“The numbers sound huge,” she told jurors, “but probability is not proof. High numbers do not automatically equal truth.”
Stevens also pointed out that fingerprints and DNA belonging to unidentified individuals were found at the property but were not fully investigated. She suggested that one of those individuals could have been the true perpetrator.
The hair found in Singh’s hand, she argued, could be explained by incidental contact since the two men had worked together for months, shared tools, and had previous close contact through business dealings.
Questioning Police Procedures
The defence further criticised the police investigation, claiming the search of Rajinder’s home was poorly conducted, with confusion over what items were being sought and other objects missing from official search lists.
Stevens also challenged the Crown’s reliance on the purchase of gloves and a knife as evidence of premeditation, arguing that Rajinder worked as a fibre-optic cable installer and routinely bought such equipment for his job. She added that it would make little sense to use his own bank account if he were planning a murder.
Alibi Disputed
Rajinder told police that he had taken his wife to Mosgiel for driving practice on the night of Singh’s murder. However, phone data showed that his wife had only been in Mosgiel on the day of the crime and the following day. The Crown suggested this trip was instead used to establish a false alibi or potentially dispose of evidence.
Jury to Deliberate
Justice Rachel Dunningham is scheduled to sum up the case before the jury retires to deliberate. With sharply contrasting narratives from the Crown and defence, the jury must now decide whether the evidence proves Rajinder’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The case continues to attract widespread attention due to its complex forensic elements and deeply personal allegations. The Indian Weekender will continue to follow developments closely.
Conclusion
Stevens also highlighted Rajinder’s supportive relationship with Singh, noting that he had helped Singh become an independent businessman and considered him honest and hard-working. This, she argued, contradicts any notion of animosity or intent to murder.
The trial has now reached its final stage, with jurors set to retire after Justice Rachel Dunningham summarizes the case. The court will now determine whether the evidence presented establishes Rajinder’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
FAQs
Q1: Who was Gurjit Singh?
Gurjit Singh was a Dunedin-based businessman who was found murdered at his home in January last year.
Q2: Who is the accused?
The accused is a man known only as Rajinder, a former employer and associate of Singh.
Q3: What evidence does the Crown rely on?
The Crown relies on DNA evidence, injury analysis, purchase history of suspected murder items, phone location data, and alleged false statements to police.
Q4: What is the defence’s main argument?
The defence argues there is no clear motive, DNA evidence only shows probability, police investigations were flawed, and alternative suspects were not properly investigated.
Q5: When will the verdict be decided?
The jury is expected to retire for deliberations after the judge’s final summary, with a verdict expected soon.