Cricket match killing: Accused walks free after judge cites shared blame

Afzal Deendial, who admitted to fatally stabbing his friend during a cricket match in 2022, was freed on Monday after the Demerara High Court determined that the three-year sentence imposed had already been served while he was on remand. The sentence was handed down by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh. At an earlier hearing on February 10, 2026, Deendial pleaded guilty to manslaughter after the State accepted the reduced charge. During that hearing, prosecutor Christopher Belfield outlined the facts of the case, after which the court ordered the preparation of a probation report and a victim impact statement.

The probation reports detailed Deendial’s personal history, social circumstances, and behaviour while in custody, while the victim impact statement highlighted the effect of the killing on the deceased’s family. Both reports were submitted to the court ahead of sentencing and were relied upon by the judge in determining the appropriate reductions. According to the agreed statement of facts, the fatal incident occurred on August 12, 2022, at the Muslim Youth Organisation (MYO) ground on Woolford Avenue, Georgetown. Deendial and Kareem Kayum, 25, were at the venue participating in a cricket match, but on opposing teams. The two men, who were known to each other and described as close friends, became involved in a verbal dispute during the game. The court heard that the exchange began as “name-calling,” a common occurrence in competitive cricket, but quickly escalated into a heated argument.

Even after moving into the batting cage, Deendial continued directing remarks at Kayum. Tensions intensified, and the confrontation soon turned physical. During the altercation, Deendial armed himself with a knife and stabbed Kayum once in the region of the heart. Kayum collapsed at the scene. He was later transported to the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) where he was pronounced dead. Following the incident, Deendial was arrested by police and reportedly admitted to the killing during investigations. At the time, he was a 21-year-old student of the University of Guyana (UG), residing at Mon Repos, East Coast Demerara (ECD). He was initially charged with murder and made his first appearance before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts before being committed to stand trial in the High Court.
The court also heard that Kayum, of Regent Street, Georgetown, was preparing to be married on August 21, 2022, just nine days after the fatal incident. On the day of the stabbing, he had reportedly been finalising arrangements for his wedding before joining friends at the cricket match. A victim impact statement was also presented, detailing the devastating effect of Kayum’s death on his family. His sudden and violent death, according to his family, not only robbed him of his future but left his family to cope with the emotional and psychological aftermath of losing a loved one under tragic circumstances. In his submissions on Monday, state prosecutor s Christopher Belfield stressed the seriousness of the offence, pointing to the use of a knife as a dangerous weapon. It was argued that Deendial had armed himself prior to the confrontation by placing the weapon in his pocket, suggesting an element of premeditation. The State further contended that remarks made by the accused contributed to the escalation of the dispute.

However, Justice Singh, in delivering his ruling, emphasised that the circumstances surrounding the incident were not one-sided. He noted that both the accused and the deceased were young men and friends and that the fatal encounter arose during a heated exchange. The judge pointed to evidence presented to the court indicating that the deceased had been verbally aggressive and had escalated the confrontation. Reports also suggested that the deceased, who was said to be physically larger and taller than Deendial, struck him to the back of the head during the altercation. According to the defence, this physical blow left Deendial fearful and disoriented, prompting him to react in what he perceived to be self-defence. While acknowledging the irreversible loss of life, Justice Singh stated that the court could not attribute full responsibility to one individual in light of the circumstances. He therefore declined to place significant weight on several aggravating factors advanced by the prosecution. The court also considered Deendial’s conduct while in custody. Defense Attorney, Latchmie Rahamat, during her time on the floor, told the court that her client had made meaningful efforts toward rehabilitation, including enrolling in educational programmes, attempting to continue his university studies online and participating in essay competitions in which he performed commendably. She described the incident as deeply shocking to both families, maintaining that it was out of character for Deendial. While recognising that a life had been lost, counsel argued that her client had not intended to kill his friend and had instead reacted in an emotionally charged moment. She said both he and his family are remorseful. Rahamat further revealed that Deendial’s family is offering $1 million to assist the deceased’s young child. She explained that the family initially chose not to approach the child’s relatives out of concern that it might be perceived as an attempt to influence the course of justice.

However, she stressed that the offer remains open, regardless of the conclusion of the case, as a genuine gesture of remorse and support. In addressing the court, Deendial expressed remorse for his actions. “I am truly sorry. My actions were not intended to kill him. I acted based on how I was feeling in the moment,” he said. He added that he had acted in a heightened emotional state and maintained that the incident does not define who he is, while appealing for leniency and offering an apology to the deceased’s family. As such, Justice Sing handed down the sentence and set a starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment, noting the seriousness of the offence, which involved the use of a knife during a confrontation. In reducing the sentence, the court deducted six years, one-third, for Deendial’s early guilty plea to manslaughter. A further four years were subtracted after the court considered favourable findings in the probation and social reports, which spoke to his background and potential for rehabilitation. An additional two years were deducted for his conduct and youthfulness at the time of the offence. This resulted in a final sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The court ordered that the time Deendial spent on remand since 2022 be credited, effectively meaning he had already completed his sentence. He was subsequently freed. Before concluding the proceedings, Justice Singh encouraged the young man to use the opportunity for a fresh start.