| Special
Assignment |
||||
Deadly business
of the Maligawa bombing Three of the four accused were sentenced to death last week after they were found guilty of involvement in the conspiracy to attack the Dalada Maligawa on January 25, 1998 and also for aiding and abetting to carryout the attack. During the course of the trial the suspects had claimed they were mere traders involved in tobacco business. But evidence showed that was merely a coverup operation. It was revealed that the accused had taken the vehicle used for the bombing to the eastern province a week before the attack and then returned through a circuitous route to Kandy a day before the blast. Subramaniam Ravindran, Muthulingam Jeevaraja alias Master, Muthusamy Pillai Dharmalingam and Krishnasamy Ramachandran were the first to the fourth accused respectively. The first accused Ravindran was tried in absentia while the second accused Jeevaraja was acquitted after court found no evidence to link him with the other three. The first accused Ravindran was the owner of the Isuzu vehicle 43- 1396 used for the suicide bomb attack and had described himself as a resident of Trincomalee when purchasing the vehicle. During the trial a person involved in the sale of the vehicle, Pathiranage Ariyaratne had identified a photograph of the suspect as the one who bought the vehicle. It was also revealed that the first accused had been a frequent visitor to the Hindu Cultural Centre on Peradeniya road, Kandy where one of the other accused had also stayed. The suspects were accused of placing explosives in the deadly truck that was used in the attack. The vehicle had been purchased in December 1997 and since then had been used in business activities. The former owner of the vehicle was identified as Sumith Pathirana, a vegetable businessman. However he had sold the vehicle later to Priyantha Gunawardena, the same person from whom he had purchased the vehicle. The first suspect Ravindran had arranged to pay for the vehicle on a monthly instalment basis through a person identified as Ariyaratne who had also promised to provide a full body for the vehicle as it had been covered only partially. The vehicle chassis had cost Rs. 200,000, but the body work had cost only Rs. 20,000. The first trace of the vehicle dated back to January 12, 1998 where documentation at the Hindu Cultural Centre indicated that the vehicle had been parked at the centre and that three of the accused sought accommodation there. Two of them were identified as Dharmalingam and Ravindran. The records had also revealed that the vehicle had left the centre on January 17 and returned to the location on January 23. According to statements given by the suspects, on January 17 the vehicle had left for Batticaloa carrying a consignment of 3000 coconuts from Melsiripura to Porathivu in the east and two days later had proceeded to Kalmunai to sell some tobacco leaves and paddy. Thereafter they claimed they returned to Kandy on January 22 as there was a defect in the vehicle and as they had to pay an instalment for the vehicle. On January 22 the vehicle had passed the Udayapura checkpoint at 3 p.m. and the Malwatte check point at 3.10 p.m. The vehicle had passed the Karambugala check point at 9.25 p.m. and during a security check on the vehicle three bundles of tobacco had been found. This was later referred to as five bundles. After being subjected to some security checks again on January 23, at Hasalaka and Tennakumbura, the vehicle had returned to the Hindu Cultural Centre. Ravindran and Dharmalingam had also stayed there, according to records found at the centre. During the course of the trial, the defendants did not dispute the ownership of the vehicle but claimed that it was not used in the attack. Investigations also revealed that only five bundles of tobacco had been brought back in the lorry on its way back from Batticaloa and there was no evidence to suggest that the accused were engaged in tobacco business on their way back to Kandy. During the evidence it was revealed that about 200 kilograms of explosives had been used for the attack and detectives believed it was hidden behind the driver's seat. In the course of the trial the location from where the tyres were bought for the vehicle had been traced and one of the main evidence that linked the vehicle to the attack was the spare wheel that was found at the scene of the blast. Evidence also revealed that Dharmalingam, Ramachandran and the vehicle owner Ravindran had the vehicle in their possession from January 12 to 24. Dharmalingam was an employee of the vehicle owner Ravindran and in addition to a daily wage he was also paid part of the profit from tobacco business while the fourth accused Ramachandran, a resident of Peradeniya worked as a driver on a daily basis. The court noted that if the first accused, Ravindran, who is still at large, believed he was not involved in the murders and the vehicle concerned was not used in the attack -- as the defendants' lawyers claimed -- he should have made himself available for the inquiry. According to evidence the accused Ravindran, Dharmalingam and Ramachandran had travelled from Kandy to Batticaloa on January 17 and had claimed they had engaged in tobacco and paddy business. But after January 22, the statement does not say they were engaged in paddy or tobacco business. The courts also raised a doubt over a lorry returning to Kandy with a mere load of five tobacco bundles to pay a monthly finance instalment of Rs. 17,000. Even during their return to Colombo there was no evidence to show that the lorry was used for any business activities. The court also noted that the instalment money could have been sent through someone else or by way of a cheque. It was also revealed that the lorry had avoided the Mahaoya main check point and taken a complicated circuitous route. At Bibile the vehicle had apparently undergone a repair. The courts also held that though a high monthly installment was being paid for the purchase of the vehicle, there was no evidence to suggest that it was being used in a profitable manner that would generate a good income. There was also evidence to suggest that the vehicle was in the posession of the three accused vehicle at least for 10 days before the incident with nobody else having access to it.Court also pointed out that the fourth suspect Ramachanran had no reason to stay at the Hindu Cultural Centre as he was a resident of Peradeniya. Dharmalingam in his statement had said that on the day before the attack on the Maligawa he had taken Rs. 500 from Ravindran and had left for Trincomalee. But according to the statement by the caretaker of the Hindu Cultural centre Dharmalingam and Ravindran had stayed overnight at the centre. The vehicle too had been parked at the centre that night. Court held that therefore the vehicle had been in their possession on the previous night of the attack and it was established that it was a blue Elf vehicle. The vehicle had broken through a gate on Kings' street side to enter the Maligawa premises. One of the witnesses, Woman Police constable Geethani Jayawardena in her evidence had said she had seen a blue vehicle heading towards the Maligawa and had closed the gate of the Maligawa preventing the attackersfrom entering the Maligawa after the blast. Although there had been evidence to suggest that the second accused and his wife too had stayed at the Hindu Cultural centre, there was no evidence to suggest that he was linked to the other three accused. He was therefore aquitted. The court held that the three accused had been involved in the crime of concealing explosives and bringing the vehicle and were sentenced accordingly (See details about the sentence in separate copy). Courts also held there was evidence to suggest that the lorry on the way to Kandy had avoided one of the main check points where vehicles were thoroughly checked. The accused also had worked with the intention of carrying out the attack on the Dalada Malaigawa, the courts said. A. Vinayagamoorthy appeared for the accused while state counsel Thusitha Mudalige and Harippriya Jayasundera appeared for the prosecution. |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
