By

Mike Andree

One of the chief witnesses for the prosecution, who had identified Duminda Silva as the person who ordered the others to shoot at Premachandra, retracted the statement he had made to the CID, when the Baratha Lakshman Premachandra killing case was taken for inquiry before Colombo Magistrate Priyanwtha Liyanage on Friday.

At the commencement of the inquiry, President’s Counsel Hemantha Warnakulasuriya, appearing for the 11th suspect, Duminda Silva, said that on the last occasion witness No. 105, called by the Prosecution, was not tendered for cross-examination, which had resulted in an injustice to his client. He said he had interviewed the Attorney General and explained to him that there were two (02) sets of witnesses whose statements had been recorded by the CID, which completely contradicted each other over the manner in which Bharatha Lakshman was shot.

The first set of witnesses, who identified Bharatha Lakshman as “Lucky Aiya”, had stated that it was at the insistence of Duminda Silva that Premachandra was shot, but those statements were recorded long after the incident and those witnesses could have been coached by interested parties to utter falsehoods to implicate Duminda Silva and exonerate the people who had shot Duminda Silva.

Counsel Warnakulasuriya said the other statements had been recorded immediately after the incident and they had clearly stated that it was Bharatha Lakshman’s party that shot Duminda Silva at close range and that Duminda Silva was the first to be shot at and he was not the assailant. The Attorney General and the Assistant Solicitor General had agreed to the submissions and also to tender the witnesses for cross examination, the Counsel said

When the Registrar of the Court read the statement of the first lay witness for the prosecution, Welvita Arachchige Dayananda, which was recorded eight days after the incident, wherein the CID recorded that Dayananada stated that immediately after Duminda Silva had shouted to the people “Fire, Fire,” his cohorts had shot ‘Lucky Aiya’ on his leg. However, witness said that he did not make any such statement to the police; he went to the scene and found two (02) people lying on the ground with injuries and helped the others to lift them to the vehicle which transported them to hospital.

The Prosecution then called the Police constable Suminda Kumara of the STF. He stated that at the polling centre at Rahula College Mulleriyawa, Angoda, he saw five (05) vehicles coming in a parade and stopping at the polling booth. A number of people got off and Duminda Silva was one of them. But, he was not armed. There were others armed with revolvers and T-56 rifles. Duminda Silva then went near the polling booth and asked three women, who were there, whom they had voted for. One of them replied, but he did not hear what she said. Thereafter, Duminda Silva assaulted the woman next to her and the women ran away. The first woman was Solangarachchi’s wife and the second was Solangarachchi’s wife’s sister.

Asked under cross examination by Counsel Warnakulasuriya, whether he knew Solangarachchi’s wife or her sister, the witness said, “No”.

When the State Counsel asked the witness whether he could identify any person who had come with Duminda Silva to the polling booth, he looked at the accused and stated that he could not identify anyone. Upon being questioned how he knew that the two women were Solangarachchi’s wife and her sister, the witness stated that he had learnt the identity of the two women from a bystander.

Counsel Warnakualsuriya questioned the witness at length and asked whether he reiterated what he had said. The witness stumbled and gave three different versions.

Then, when Counsel Warnakulasuriya suggested that Solangarachchi’s wife had told the police, that neither she nor the lady who was there was assaulted by Duminda Silva, and also that the lady who was next to her was not her sister. The witness remained silent.

Thereafter, the Prosecution sought permission to call another witness and Counsel Warnakulasuriya said that it was the principle of natural justice and fair play as there were about 150. The defence Counsel should know in advance the names of the witnesses to be called on the next date, so that he could obtain the necessary instructions from his client. He said the Criminal Procedure Code stated that notice should be given to the defence so that the defendant had sufficient time to prepare his case. Attorney-at-Law Thushara Mudalige stated that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure (Amended) Act to give notice to the defence of the number of witnesses. The Court observed that State could inform the number of witnesses that would be called on the next date which will be sufficient notice for the Defence.

Further inquiry was postponed to August 30.

Thushara Mudalige appeared for the Prosecution. Anuja Premaratne appeared for the first suspect. President’s Counsel Amith Silva for the second, fourth, sixth and ninth suspects; President’s Counsel Jayantha Weerasinghe for the 3rd suspect, Sanjay Gamage for the 7th suspect. President Counsel Hemantha Warnakualsuriya, assisted by Premasiri Perera, Indrajith Amarathunga and Hansajeewa Samaradivkara, appeared for the 11th suspect, Duninda Silva, Naveen Weeraskera for the 12th suspect, Ananda Hettiarachchi for the 13th suspect and Anura Seneviratne for the aggrieved party.

COURTESY:THE ISLAND