Archives

Udatalawinna mass murder : Defence cross-examines RPC

by Kumar Wethasinghe

The prosecution's witness RPC Nilmini Gunasekera yesterday said that the chain of events that took place on the day of the general election did not give him sufficient time to make all entries in his note book. Nevertheless, the witness reiterated the evidence given by him was genuine. He also denied the defence suggestion that his note-book was fabricated for the purpose of this case.

The witness was being cross-examined by Counsel Tirantha Walaliyadde and Anil Silva.

The Bench comprised Eric Basnayake (President) Deepal Wijesundera and Sunil Rajapaksa.

Under cross-examination by the Defence Counsel Tirantha Walaliyadde, the witness for prosecution RPC Nilmini Gunasekera gave further evidence.

He witness said in view of the countless events and the busy programme that took place on the day of the general election, he had no opportunity to make notes about every incident that occurred. That day they had reported back to the station late at night and generally the arrivals and the departures were marked by the person in charge of the team SI Piyasiri.

The witness admitted that he was under interdiction for two years since 1994 in connection with an assaulting incident.

At the time the witness had been assigned to the security unit of UNP Provincial Councillor Mohamed Haleem.

The witness denied the suggestion by the defence that he got reinstated in service through the same PC member. He couldn't recollect that case number but after two years, he had been acquitted of the charges made against him.

While they were on mobile duty at the Doragamuwa polling centre around 10.30 to 11.45 a.m. they had been instructed through a radio message to go to the Muslim school where a van had been set on fire. Asked whether he noted that in the pocket notebook the witness said no.

However, at about 12.30 p.m. he had gone to the Muslim school. The witness said that he had probably entered that incident. He did not know the exact time.

He further said that he made a statement to the CID on March 14 2002, at Sujatha BMV, Wattegama. Prior to recording the statement he had not met the CID officer at the Wattegama Police. He said he made the statement to the CID on the instructions of their OIC. Homeguard Jayasuriya also had made his statement on that day.

The witness said he may have said to the CID that having visited other polling stations, they went to the Doragamuwa Centre around 12.45 p.m. It was at that time that Lohan Ratwatte threatened him. They had remained there for about 20 minutes before going to Udatalawinna.

Counsel Walaliyadde - You had told the CID that you went to the Udatalawinna Muslim school at 12.25 p.m? Yes it could have been right.

Counsel - Why are you uncertain about the exact time didn't you have a wristwatch? - I had one but there were urgent matters. They had remained at Udatalawinna till evening and had also taken the injured to the hospital.

Counsel: If you were at Udatalawinna between 12.30 and 1.30 p.m. how can you be at Doragamuwa to receive the radio message at 12.30 p.m.? Both the incidents took place within an hour. After the Doragamuwa incident you visited Udatalawinna. The witness refuted the defence suggestion that he was making untruthful evidence.

At that stage Mr. Walaliyadda produced the book containing 'Police Orders' and questioned the accused whether he was not aware of its requirements. The witness said it was the first time he knew about such a book.

The counsel then drew the witnesses attention to police orders A/16 Section 4 and questioned whether he could be regarded a Police officer when he has never seen the Police Orders book.

The counsel suggested that the witness was misleading court and questioned whether he had entered in the book that on 14.12.01 he gave a statement to the CID when the witness said no.

The counsel suggested that the witness never made a statement to the CID during December 2001 and that it was later fabricated for the case but the witness denied.

The counsel then asked where the temple involved in the election incident was located. The witness answered that it was inbetween Doragamuwa and Wattegama.

At the stage the defence moved court to mark that the evidence pertaining to the location was contrary to the statement made by the witness to the CID.

Cross-examined by counsel for defence Anil Silva, RPC Gunasekera said on 5.12.2001, they first visited Udatalawinna between 4.30 a.m. to 6 a.m.

When they went, the road had been made impassable by logs which were put across the road blocking the way. They cleared the road with the help of their backup team.

The witness further said that they were assigned to patrol four polling centres. They were Udatalawinna, Doragamuwa, Meegaswatte and Palletalawinna.

Replying to a question by counsel, the witness said when he went he had noticed a van on fine and a large crowd there. He estimated the crowd at around 500 and there were more people behind the building. The crowd behaved violently. They were also armed with clubs, poles, stones and knives. Some threw stones at the van on fire. Then they had opened fire to disperse the crowd.

When Education Director Marikkar helped them to rescue some injured people who were assaulted by the villagers, the witness had gone down a hill to a river bed below and had found one injured person in a pool of blood.

Also when they tried to approach the burning van, the people had warned that it contained explosives.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager