|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 24 September 2003 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
by Sandasen Marasinghe Fifty four of the 55 spent bullet cases recovered at the site of the massacre were of the bullets fired by five T-56-2 automatic rifles he examined, said the Deputy Government Analyst W. D. Gamini Sarath Gunatilake testifying before the Trial-at-Bar hearing the Udatalawinna massacre on Wednesday. The Trial-at-Bar comprised High Court Judges Eric Basnayake (President), Deepali Wijesundara and Sunil Rajapakse. Examined by the Additional Solicitor General Palitha Fernando, the Deputy Government Analyst submitted that he scrutinised yet another T-56-2 Chinese made automatic rifle firearm with the Serial Number 1260861 to examine as to weather it had been used to fire the spent bullet cases that were sent by the Teldeniya Magistrate when they were at the live stage. It was one of the six weapons he was keeping with him for further investigations without handing over them back under the instruction of the Teldeniya Magistrate. At this stage, the prosecution produced the T-56-2 rifle firearm before the court as a production and the Deputy Government Analyst W. D. G. S. Gunatilake recognised it. The five digits number which is noted on five other parts of the weapon Action Cover, Return Spring Hold, Bolt Carrier, Bolt and rear end of the Firearm matched precisely with the last five digits of the Serial Number. Witness further stated that having tallied the characteristic features of the spent bullet cases recovered from the site of the massacre with the sample spent bullet cases obtained after firing from the aforesaid weapon he was of the opinion that 13 spent bullet cases of the 55 that were sent by the Teldeniya Magistrate were of the bullets used by the same weapon. The Deputy Government Analyst W. D. G. S. Gunatilake testifying observed that one of the spent bullet cases did not bear characteristic features so that he could not find out from which weapon it had been used at its live stage. High Court Judge Eric Basnayake: Why did not the spent bullet case bear characteristic features? Witness: There are such rare instances when characteristic features are not marked on the spent bullet cases. It may happen when the metal the bullets are made of, is not up to the standard or due to the changes of the pressure inside the firearm. The Deputy Government Analyst W. D. G. S. Gunatilake submitted that he was of the opinion that 54 spent bullet cases of the 55 found at the site of the massacre were of the bullets fired by five of the 29 T-56-2 automatic rifle firearms he was sent by the Teldeniya Magistrate. Additional Solicitor General: Can the hole on the windscreen be found in a cell at the Katugastota Police caused by a bullet of a rifle firearm? Witness: Possible. Additional Solicitor General: Can that hole on the windscreen be caused by a bullet fired from a vehicle behind the previous one when the latter attempted to aim yet another vehicle in front of those both while all three were moving on a road with bends on the same direction? Witness: It is impossible to happen if the shot was fired by a skilful marksman. Additional Solicitor General: Can you say it is impossible to happen at a time when the vehicles are moving? Witness: No, it is impossible to say whether the weapon slipped a bit at the time of firing. High court Judge Eric Basnayake: Where could have been the weapon when the bullet pierced through the windscreen? The Deputy Government Analyst: Ten inches beyond the hole on the windscreen sometimes outside the driver's door of the vehicle or inside the vehicle near the driver's door. High court Judge Sunil Rajapakse: Is it possible to observe the angle of the bullet struck against the windscreen. Witness: Not precisely. Further hearings resume today (24). |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
