Sunday Times 2
1957 Adeline Vitharana murder case and the hawk-eyed inspector
View(s):This is a story of general reader interest. But this narrative, in today’s context, strikes one of the differences then and now of the deployment of police intelligence and of the various faculties engaged in this task of policing. Little does one hear of such workings of the police today when other negative deployments have completely overtaken police action, evident to reader and the public.
This case was a cause celebre in the annals of crime in Sri Lanka. It was a sequel to the discovery, late at night on March 14, 1959, of the body of a woman at Thimbiriwewa near the 27th mile-post on the Puttalam-Anuradhapura Road.
While police were at the scene, Inspector Dharmaratne of the Anuradhapura police was so alert as to observe a man driving past the scene of crime, a couple of times, slowing down and observing what the police were doing. This clue gave the police an early breakthrough.
The car No. 1 Sri 6265 used by the accused was examined on March 16 and it was revealed that the car had been serviced the same day and the undercarriage cleaned with penetrating oil, but four strands of hair similar to Adeline’s hair were found on the undercarriage when the car was examined.
A post-mortem examination conducted on March 16, 1959 revealed that the woman was between 20 and 25 years of age, that she was about seven months pregnant, and that her body bore numerous injuries consistent with her having been run over by a motor car.
J. Anandagoda, the first accused, admitted to Inspector Dharmaratne of having committed the murder.
The case for the prosecution was that the body was that of Adeline Vitharana, that her death had been caused by a motor car being deliberately driven over her body at least twice, that the consequent injuries were the cause of her death, and that death had occurred between 11 p.m. and midnight on March 14, 1959. There was a myriad circumstantial evidence supporting the direct evidence.
The prosecution called witnesses who deposed to the following matters, inter alia:
That the first accused had, under a name different to that by which he was generally known, been acquainted with Adeline, an intelligent and attractive young woman, from about November 1956; that he was the father of a child born to Adeline in August 1957; that he had thereafter promised to marry her.
Meanwhile, Anandagoda had been on friendly terms with a family of better social status than that of Adeline’s relatives; that he occasionally stayed at the home of that family, and that it was apparent the he had proposed to contract a marriage with the young daughter of that family.
According to Inspector Dharmaratne, Anandagoda had told him about his relationship with Adeline; that Adeline was his mistress for about two or three years and that she had a child by him; that Adeline was insisting he should get married to her but that he was putting it off; that Adeline was disgracing him and that she was an unbearable nuisance to him.
Anandagoda told Inspector Dharmaratne that on March 2, Adeline met him at Kalutara and that he took her to Kalawellawa the same day and left her in the house of Podisingho, the 2nd accused; that on March 14, he took Adeline and Podisingho in his car to Anuradhapura via Puttalam where the murder was committed; that on March 15, he drove past the scene of murder where the body was discovered and that he slowed down and noticed people and police officers there.
The suspects were charged with two offences, viz., conspiracy to murder, and murder. They were found guilty. The court ruled:
“That between the 2nd day of March, 1959 and the 15th day of March, 1959, at Timbiriwewa, in the division of Anuradhapura, within the jurisdiction of this Court, and at Kalutara, Kalawellawa, Colombo, Puttalam and other places, you did agree to commit or act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting an offence, to wit, the murder of Adeline Vitharana and that you are thereby guilty of the offence of conspiracy for the commission or abetment of the said offence of murder in consequence of which conspiracy the said offence murder was committed and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 296 (Murder) of the Penal Code read with Sections 113 B (Conspiracy – punishable as for abetment) of the said Code.
“That on the 14th day of March, 1959, at Thimbiriwewa within the jurisdiction of this Court, you did in the course of the same transaction commit murder by causing the death of the said Adeline Vitharana and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 296 of the Penanl Code.”
Anandagoda was convicted on the charge of murder and sentenced to death.
The evidence of Inspector Dharmaratne in regard to the ‘admissions’ of the accused not amounting to confessions was a highly contentious issue. The arguments of the prosecution, the defence and the positions taken by courts are so convoluted that legal aspects will not be commented on here.
(The writer is a Retired Senior Superintendent of Police. He can be contacted at seneviratnetz@gmail.com)