The man who murdered Dunedin resident Gurjit Singh in a frenzied knife attack has been sentenced to life in prison with a minimum non-parole period of 17.5 years.
Rajinder, 35, appeared before Justice Rachel Dunningham in the Dunedin High Court today, months after a jury found him guilty of murder following a trial late last year.
At sentencing, the court heard Rajinder admitted for the first time that he was ever at the home of Singh the night of the murder - though his version of events was disputed.
Singh, 27, was found outside his Pine Hill home on January 26, 2024, with 46 stab and slash wounds and partially decapitated.
Before sentencing, the court heard five victim impact statements from Singh’s grieving parents, three sisters and his wife, describing the emotional and financial devastation caused by his death.
His parents said Singh was “the centre of our lives” and the family’s only son.
“We sold all our land, everything we owned, to give him a chance to study,” they said.
“He worked hard, built a life in a foreign land, and dreamed of supporting us in our old age.
“He deserved time, he deserved happiness, he deserved life.”
They described the moment they learned of his death as the collapse of their world, and the trial itself as a further ordeal.
“To sit in the courtroom and hear, piece by piece, the details of how our son’s life was taken shattered something inside us forever,” they said.
“The lack of answers is a torture we live with every day. We are surviving, but we are no longer living.”
They said the killing had left them financially ruined, having sold their only security to send him overseas.
“Our last hope died with him,” they said.
Singh’s sister, who is studying in New Zealand, said her brother had been her protector and guide.
She said his death had destroyed her sense of safety and left her struggling with anxiety and grief.
Another sister described him as the family’s “biggest hope” and sole provider, saying his death had left their parents “broken both physically and mentally”.
“There is no source of income left for our family,” she said.
Their eldest sister described Singh as the “foundation” of the family, who supported them emotionally and financially.
“Without him, we have lost not only a loved one, but the foundation on which our lives were built,” she said.
Singh’s wife, whom he married in May 2023, said she had been widowed within months of their wedding.
“The last time we held each other was at the airport,” she said.
Days before she was due to join him in New Zealand, she received the news of his death.
“In a single instant, every dream, every hope, every plan we had disappeared,” she said.
“At such a young age, I became a widow — a reality I never imagined.”
She described feeling “broken, helpless and empty”, struggling to eat and sleep, and unable to continue her education.
“Life without him feels incomplete. I feel like I have nothing left.”
She also spoke of the stigma she faced as a young widow: “Instead of receiving compassion, I often feel misunderstood,” she said.
Crown prosecutor Richard Smith said the offending warranted a life sentence, with the only issue being the minimum non-parole period.
He submitted a starting point of 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment, pointing to multiple aggravating features.
Those included the “extreme brutality” of the attack, the fact it happened during a night-time home invasion, and what the Crown described as a calculated and premeditated plan.
Smith said Rajinder had told report writers that he went to Singh’s home to “clear the air” after feeling he had been poorly treated and that Singh had “gone cold” on him.
He told a report writer he intended to talk things through, “perhaps have a cup of tea”, Smith said.
But the Crown rejected that account.
“That is frankly incredible,” Smith told the court, noting the defendant armed himself with a knife and could not explain why he had also taken gloves and other items.
Smith said the offending demonstrated an “incredibly high level of brutality, callousness and depravity”.
“These types of offences undermine the wider community’s sense of safety,” he said.
The Crown maintained the killing was the result of a calculated and premeditated plan, carried out over several hours.
That included visiting multiple retail stores to assemble the materials used in the “murder kit”, before going to Singh’s home late at night.
Smith pointed to “chilling” footage of the defendant selecting the knife, followed by the fatal attack.
Smith said the level of violence was “self-explanatory”, noting the 46 wounds inflicted, many to the head, and evidence Singh had fought for his life.
He rejected the defendant’s account to a report writer as “contradictory” and urged the court to disregard it.
Defence counsel Anne Stevens KC accepted a life sentence was inevitable, telling the court the only issue was the length of time Rajinder must serve before being eligible for parole.
She said the statutory minimum of 17 years already applied because of the home invasion, and argued the case did not meet the high threshold required to go beyond that.
While accepting the killing was brutal, she said the level of planning did not amount to the kind of “calculated” offending envisaged by law for a longer minimum term.
“The planning … was all within the 24 hours preceding the crime,” she said.
In sentencing, Justice Dunningham rejected the defendant’s account of what happened that night as “quite implausible”.
She noted it was only in the pre-sentence report that the defendant admitted, for the first time, being at Singh’s home and involved in the killing.
Until then, he had denied responsibility.
She said the most likely motive was a desire to punish Singh and his wife after a perceived personal grievance, though she noted the exact motive made little difference to the sentence.
She found the killing was not spontaneous, pointing to evidence the defendant had searched for Singh’s address more than a month earlier and again on the day of the murder, before planning a route to avoid busy roads.
On the day of the killing, he bought gloves, a hunting knife and a face covering.
“Each of these purchases was designed to facilitate the murder,” she said.
Justice Dunningham detailed the “chilling” nature of the attack, noting Singh was stabbed inside his home before going through a window and being attacked again outside.
After the killing, the defendant took steps to dispose of evidence and create a false alibi, including disposing of items, cleaning his car and giving police a series of false explanations for an injury to his hand.
In setting the minimum period of imprisonment, Justice Dunningham took into account the home invasion, the brutality of the attack, the degree of planning and the profound impact on the victim’s family.
She declined to reduce the sentence for Rajinder’s previous good character, cultural isolation in prison, or a breach of his rights relating to DNA collection.
None, she said, warranted lowering the minimum term given the seriousness of the crime.
Rajinder was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17.5 years.
A firearms prohibition order was also imposed.
The court ordered him to pay reparation of $3236 to Singh’s father and $5035 to his wife.
Ben Tomsett is a multimedia journalist based in Dunedin. He joined the Herald in 2023.