Hair only proof needed for conviction: Crown

A hair found in the hand of a Dunedin man stabbed to death is all the evidence the jury needs to convict his alleged killer, the Crown says.

Rajinder, 35, is accused of the murder of 27-year-old Gurjit Singh, whose body was found partially decapitated outside his Liberton home in January last year.

While the hair in the victim’s hand provided "extremely strong support" for the proposition it came from the defendant, counsel Anne Stevens urged the jury not to be blinded by the science.

"The probabilities sound high ... just about make your eyes water because the numbers are huge. But the numbers do not make certainty, however large," she said.

"Don’t be misled by high numbers being a certainty, that high enough is good enough."

Some bloodstains, both inside and outside Mr Singh’s home, swabbed by forensic scientists were 500,000 million times more likely to contain Rajinder’s DNA than a random New Zealander, the court earlier heard.

Crown prosecutor Richard Smith said that evidence combined with the hair in the victim’s hand made it "truly extraordinary" the defendant continued to deny culpability.

"That’s about all the evidence you need," he told jurors.

Mrs Stevens, however, said the hair found in the victim’s palm could have got there innocently.

The pair worked together as fibre-optic cable installers for several months, Rajinder had sold his van to Mr Singh and they would borrow tools from one another.

"That one hair could be quite coincidental," she said.

"We all know how pesky hair can be."

Mr Smith said the onus was on the Crown to prove only that Rajinder murdered Mr Singh; it did not have to explain why.

But if the jury needed a motive, he pointed to the fact the victim’s wife, Kamaljeet Kaur, had previously turned down an arranged marriage to Rajinder.

The court previously heard she had her bags packed and was ready to move to Dunedin to be with her new husband.

"Is it a coincidence [Mr Singh] was murdered days before Ms Kaur was due to arrive in New Zealand, when they were due to start their life together?" Mr Smith asked.

"Perhaps that opened old wounds," Mr Smith said.

But Mrs Stevens said no witness had described any friction between Rajinder and Mr Singh.

The defendant’s sister said he simply shrugged it off when she informed him of the marriage.

"The notion Rajinder was upset, let alone distraught enough to murder a person, becomes implausible, a fantasy of the Crown’s," Mrs Stevens said.

"It doesn’t pass the truth test."

During the trial, jurors were shown footage of Rajinder buying a knife, neck gaiter and a pair of gloves just hours before Mr Singh was killed, transactions the defendant never disclosed to police.

And the items were never found.

Mr Smith described it as "a murder kit", but Mrs Stevens questioned why the defendant would buy such things with his bank card knowing they could easily be traced back to him.

The obvious explanation was that they were simply items for work, she said.

The fact they had not been located by police during a search of Rajinder’s Helensburgh home was a reflection of shoddy police work rather than an implication of her client’s deception, Mrs Stevens argued.

The Crown said the evidence suggested Mr Singh was initially attacked in his home and was either pushed or burst through a window to escape his attacker.

Mr Smith said Rajinder at some point cut his thumb, depositing blood around the house as he pursued the victim outside.

On the deck area, it continued, before Mr Singh was stabbed to death on his lawn.

Mrs Stevens, though, stressed the case was circumstantial.

There was no eye-witness evidence that put Rajinder at the scene, none of his fingerprints were present and there was no CCTV footage of his vehicle either heading to or from the address.

Rajinder was eventually charged with murder on February 5 last year, a week after Mr Singh’s death.

A video of the interview was played for the jury last week and the defendant’s reaction of shock was telling, Mrs Stevens said.

"He responds like an innocent man."

In contrast, the Crown called the evidence "completely overwhelming".

Justice Rachel Dunningham will sum up the case for jurors today before they retire to consider their verdict.