By Shehan Chamika Silva
The former SDIG and the former Crimes OIC were remanded on charges of causing disappearance of evidence, fabricating false evidence, touching it to screen the offender and conspiring under the clauses of 189,198 and 296 of the Penal Code. Acceding to the request of the prosecution that the Mobitel Company was not supporting probe sufficiently by providing mobile phone details appropriately, the Magistrate ordered the Mobitel Company to provide certain mobile phone details relating to the inquiry immediately to expedite investigations.
Submitting a report of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Sri Lanka Medical Council against Former JMO Ananda Samarasekara and two others on the allegation of missing body parts of the corpse of Thajudeen, the counsel appearing on behalf of the SLMC told the court that the council had charged the former JMO and others in a Professional Behavior Committee for further inquiry.
The Magistrate also directed the SLMC to report over the progress of the inquiry consistently to the court. Senior State Counsel, Dilan Ratnayake told the Court that the prosecution was conducting a sensitive investigation dedicatedly into the complex nature of the murder of Thajudeen, therefore, the CID needs appropriate time to work on the investigations.
Submitting a further report in Court, the CID informed the court that the former SDIG had interfered in closing the extracts of the case deceitfully, since he had not taken any appropriate actions as an experienced police officer to investigate on the deceased, Thajudeen’s wallet which was found after the accident from 3 kilo meters away from the place of the accident.
Appearing for the first suspect, former Crimes OIC, Sumith Perera, the Counsel Ajith Pathirana told the court that his client was prepared to provide a statement to the Magistrate over the inquiry under the ‘Power to record statements and confessions’ of section 127 in the Criminal Procedure Code. However the Magistrate told the suspect that he may have to satisfy the Magistrate if he was to make a statement independently on the next date.
Appearing for the second suspect, counsel Anil Silva PC moved that the offences stated in the ‘B’ report under the section of 190 and 198 of the Penal Code were bailable if the magistrate was satisfied to grant bail considering the other facts. And he also citing few precedents, and said that it was not fair to consider on the prosecution’s arguments in rejecting bail application as it cannot be seen that the suspect would interfere with witnesses in the inquiry or effect public peace.
The Magistrate rejecting the bail applications of the suspects held that the Court could apparently see the possibility of the witnesses being affected by the suspects if they were released on bail, as they were once powerful police officers with the capability of affecting the inquiry.
The Magistrate also held that under the section of 32 in the Penal Code, ‘Liability for act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention’, provides more broader provision to a magistrate to consider on remanding a suspect and he also considered the allegation under section 113 of the penal code, ‘conspiracy’.
The Magistrate also rejected the request of the defense counsel that to allow the second suspect, former SDIG to be examined by his private specialist Doctor at the prison and directed the defense to request the Prison authority first regarding any outside medical treatments and then tender the recommendation letter from Prison Medical Officer in court.
