ADVOCATAS

🔆 Hokandara Murder Case - "Hate does not quell hatred"

[ Sajeewa Alias Ukkuwa & Others V Attorney General ]

Humans are being controlled by the hormones and enzymes which are active in this wonderful human body depending on genetic and environmental factors.

All human beings have more or less the percentage of all emotions, and simply it can be categorised as bad and good. But as we have a brain we should control our emotions not to be punished by natural and man-made laws.

When we look at the history of Sri Lanka as well as in world, it seems that blood has been shed due to greed for land and power.

Most people act like they have been born to live immortal without death. No one knows that the tempter will come suddenly one day without a warning. On that day we all have to go without anything at all.

However, except for a handful of organised crimes in Sri Lanka, many other crimes have been committed due to the escalation of land disputes, long-running feuds between two or more parties that have led to criminal offences such as murder, r**e, assault and so on.

Often, these land disputes happen between relatives or neighbours.

The Hokandara murder case is one such example where for the first time in Sri Lanka DNA technology was used.

In 1999, the whole country was shocked after four men from the Hokandara area brutally hacked to death a father, mother, three daughters, and a son. One daughter was tied to a bed, gang-r**ed, and hanged to death. They also looted all the jewelries belonging to the women.

The case was held based on the eyewitness testimony as well as the use of fingerprint and DNA technology to bring charges against the suspects who were tried in the High Court.

This heinous and horrific crime was committed in the house of the deceased from around 2.00 pm to midnight with the intention of seeking revenge for the hatred that arose owing to a long-running conflict between two families in the Hokandara area.

The family of the deceased Lalanadasa was residing at Amaragoda Road, Hokandara.

The father of this family of six members, was Vithanage Lalanadasa, a farmer who owned a large amount of land in the village.

His wife was Kolurage Siriyawathi and his three daughters and son respectively were Chandara Priyangani, an accounts clerk, Chithra Dayangani, a Management Faculty-student at the University of Jayewardenepura, Nayana Damayanthi, an accountant student and the son Nissanka, a technician.

Although this Lalanadasa family was affluent in the village, it did not have much common relationships with the villagers.

The Amaradasa family also lived near Lalanadasa’s house. Over many times, Lalanadasa lodged complaints with the police and a case was filed in the Homagama Magistrate’s Court citing harassment by the Amaradasa family.

The case was taken up by the Homagama Magistrate’s Court on the date of this incident and the mother Siriyawathi and the eldest daughter Chandra went to attend court.

But Amaradasa and his son did not appear in court on this day. Lalanadasa’s son Nissanka also left for his job. Ultimately, Lalanadasa, Chithra, and Nayana were at home on that day.

Incident

The date was February 10, 1999 and it was around 8.30 pm, when the Thalangama Police received a telephone call from a person called Chandragupta.

Later at around 11.00 pm, Inspector Suraweera of the Thalangama Police arrived at the house where the incident had taken place, and discovered a few dead bodies inside Lalanadasa’s house and his garden. The tempter had come already.

As Inspector Suraweera entered the house through the back door, a light came on and he found Lalanadasa’s body inside a large wooden box used for storing paddy.

His arms and legs were tied with a coir rope. He saw the bodies of Siriyawathi and Chandra Priyangani lying on the floor in a corridor adjacent to the room, and bleeding from wounds inflicted on their necks. They also found a six-foot-long, blood-stained rag hanging from the wall of the corridor between the two bodies.

While inspecting another room, Chithra Dayangani’s body was found hanging from the door frame. Her hands were tied behind her back, her face down and her body was touching the floor. And also blood, a condom, an empty cigarette pack, and cigarette ash were found nearby.

The investigators then found Nayana Damayanthi’s body behind the toilet in the back yard of the house. Her body was covered with areca nut leaves.

Later that day, at around 3.00 am, Nisanka’s body was found in a coconut grove about 30 meters from his house, and blood and mud were found on his clothes. They also found a ‘Kitul’ stick covered in blood and mud nearby. Amaradasa, who was in a critical condition, was also found somewhat close to Nisanka’s body. Amaradasa also died after being hospitalised.

Most probably, Nissanka who came home late at night after his work, and after seeing all his family members lying dead on the premises, he might have put up a fight with Amaradasa and both were subsequently killed.

There were no clues as to how this incident actually happened. However, seven human lives were lost on that day.

There were four suspects Sajeewa alias “Ukkuwa”, a 19-year-old employee of Amaradasa, Amaradasa’s son, 17-year-old Gayan Suranga, and two others namely, 25-year-old Sampathsiri Nandana and 21-year-old Mahinda Siriwardena. The group had spent the day at Lalanadasa’s house and initially they murdered three people who were at the house, one girl was gang-r**ed and hanged to death and secondly, they murdered the two people who came home after the court case and finally the son Nissanka who came home after work at midnight.

However, Amaradasa also died due to this incident after he had been attacked by Nissanka.

The following day the first second and third suspects were arrested by police and produced before the High Court and the stolen gold jewelries was also from recovered their possession.

Several gold rings were engraved with the word ‘Chandra’.

Amaradasa’s son went into hiding and surrendered to the court later on.

Eyewitness testimony of Jonty

W.W. Jayanatha alias “Jonty” was Amaradasa’s family friend as well as Amaradasa’s son’s best friend.

The prosecution’s case was entirely dependent on the eyewitness testimony. On the day of the incident, Jonty had gone to Lalanadasa’s house with Amaradasa’s son on three occasions.

All three trips took place at the request of Amaradasa’s son Gayan. Jonty had clearly stated that the first time he visited Lalanadasa’s house, he did not know what was going on there.

He arrived at Lalanadasa’s house for the first time that day with Gayan around 2.00 pm.

At that time he had seen only the bodies of Lalanadasa and Nayana Damayanthi. Jonty had by then noticed that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd accused were in the house. Jonty said Gayan also gave Ukkuwa a pack of ci******es.

Jonty had gone to Lalanadasa’s house with Gayan for the second time at around 3.30 pm. At that time he again observed two more bodies and later identified them as the bodies of Chandra Priyangani and Siriyawathi.

When he went to the crime scene with Gayan for the third time at around 6.00 pm, he saw Chithra Dayagani being r**ed by the suspects Ukkuwa, Mahinda, and Nandana while they were at Lalanadas’s house. They tied her to a bed in the living room and they had gang-r**ed her. together.

The witness said that Gayan also jumped on the bed saying that he also wanted to have in*******se with her. Jonty said she was alive when she was r**ed. Although Jonty visited Lalanadasa’s house three times, he did not see Nissanka dead.

Jonty’s testimony was corroborated by fingerprints found in a biscuit tin, a packet of ci******es, blood, the suspects’ mud and blood-stained clothes, a condom, looted pieces of jewelry, ropes, and other blood-stained weapons.

A person called Paranavitharana, said that Gayan had told him that he had killed two people at Lalanadasa’s house and that Gayan had spent the above time with Jonty. Jonty’s testimony was also corroborated by the testimony of Nihal Perera from the village. In this case, neither the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Police nor the Attorney General’s Department had a good understanding of DNA technology at that time.

But experts had said that the three suspects were in causation with the deceased persons. Based on that evidence, it was suspected that the three suspects may have caused the deaths of the deceased, and the court accepted the evidence.

Former Attorney General Palitha Fernando has elaborated on this in an article.

Medical evidence

The Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) pointed out that the cause of each death after the autopsy was as follows.

Lalanadasa - Strangulation by a ligature (13 external injuries and 1 internal injury) Siriyawathi - hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding from cut wounds on the neck (three external injuries) Nayana Damayanthi - hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding from a cut on the neck (two external injuries)

Chandra Priyangani - haemorrhage due to excessive bleeding from neck incision (11 external wounds ) Chitra Dayangani - hanging (two external injuries and 1 internal injury in the ge***al area). The JMO also observed that the same persons had in*******se with Chitra several times or that several persons had in*******se together.

Nissanka - haemorrhage due to excessive bleeding from the neck, (11 external injuries and two internal injuries)

High Court decision

Judgment According to Section 296, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd suspects were charged for five murders except Nissanka, and the death penalty was imposed.

Under Section 380 of the Penal Code the court ordered10 years rigorous imprisonment for all the suspects except the 4th suspect and 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 (2) for gang r**e of all suspects, including Gayan.

The High Court also held that the imprisonment should be continued respectively.

Appeal to Supreme Court

The four accused later later through President’s Counsel Rienzi Arsekularatne, Attorney-at-Law Shamal A. Kolar, L.A. Barana Gayan Perera, and several other lawyers filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and presented the following main arguments before a five bench Judge panel comprising of Shirani Bandaranayake Judge, Yapa Judge, Weerasuriya Judge, Jayasinghe and Judge, Udalagama, that Jonty’s testimony had failed to corroborate and prove that the whole case was based on circumstantial evidence.

C.R. de Silva, PC Solicitor-General with Palitha Fernando, Deputy Solicitor General and Sarath Jayamanne, Senior State Counsel appeared for the respondent.

Supreme Court decision

However, the Supreme Court, after considering all the above oral, material, forensic, fingerprints, and DNA evidence, concluded that Jonty’s evidence was admissible and that there was no issue of credibility.

Justice Sriyani Bandaranaike , pointed out that the fourth Appellant was involved in gang r**e. After it was established that one of the accused of the group had committed the offense of r**e and others had aided and abetted the crime, under Section 364 (2) (g) of the Penal Code. Section 364 of the penal code, ‘stated that: “Where the offence of r**e is committed by one or more persons or a group of persons, each person in such group committing, or abetting such offense is deemed to have committed gang r**e.”

Accordingly, the five bench judge panel unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision. However, due to the lack of evidence in Nissanka’s murder, the accused could not be punished while the circumstances in which both Nissanka and Amaradasa’s died still remains a mystery.

✍️ Thineth Korasagalla (LLB)

Credit: Denielle Kim on Facebook

கொரோனா தொற்றால் உயிரிழந்தவரின் உடல் தகனத்தை எதிர்த்து மனு... 2 ஆவது பி.சி.ஆர் சோதனைக்கு மேல்முறையீட்டு நீதிமன்றம் அனுமதி.

கொரோனா தொற்றால் உயிரிழந்ததாக
தெரிவிக்கபட்ட ஒருவரின் உடலில் இரண்டாவது பி.சி.ஆர் பரிசோதனையை நடத்துவதற்காக போடப்பட்ட மனு பரிசீலிக்கப்படும் நிலையில், தற்போது அதனை தகனம் செய்வதை நிறுத்துமாறு மேல்முறையீட்டு நீதிமன்றம் இன்று
உத்தரவிட்டது.

தூக்கத்தின் போது உயிரிழந்த கொத்தலாவல பாதுகாப்பு பல்கலைக்கழகத்தில் பணிபுரிந்த 26 வயது பிசியோதெரபிஸ்ட் ஒருவருக்காக இந்த
மனு தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டது.

இறந்தவர் மீது முதலில் நடத்தப்பட்ட சோதனையில் அவர் (OVID- 19 நோயால்
பாதிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாகவும், உடல் தகனம் செய்யப்பட உள்ளதாகவும் தெரியவந்துள்ளது.

இதனை எதிர்த்து போடப்பட்ட மனுவில்
முஸ்லீம்களின் நம்பிக்கை பிரகாரம் தகனம் செய்ய அனுமதிக்க முடியாது எனவும் அதன்படி PCR சோதனையின் நம்பகத்தன்மையை உறுதிப்படுத்த இரண்டாவது பி.சி.ஆர் பரிசோதனையைப் பெற அனுமதி கோரப்பட்டது.

இறந்தவரின் பெற்றோர்கள் சார்பாக சட்டத்தரணி பைசர் முஸ்தபா, சாந்த ஜெயவர்தன மற்றும் ருஷ்டி ஹபீப் ஆகியோர் மனுதாரர்களை
பிரதிநிதித்துவப்படுத்தினர். மனு இம்மாதம் புதன்கிழமை, 17 ம் தேதி மீண்டும் விசாரணைக்கு எடுக்கப்படும்.

කරුණු 07ක් මත කොවිඩ් මරණ භුමදානයට අවසර දුන්නා - ජේෂ්ඨ මහාචාර්ය ජෙනිෆර් පෙරේරා "හිරු" නාලිකාවත් ස කොරෝනා මරණ භුමදානයට සහ ආදාහනයට තමන් ඇතුළු කමිටුව අවසර ලබා දුන් බව කොරෝනා මරණවල අවසන් කටයුතු සිදුකළ යුතු ආකාරය සම.....