|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 17 July 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Bindunuwewa massacre case: OIC could have prevented unfortunate incident by Wasantha Ramanayake It was most unfortunate that the fourth accused-appellant IP Karunasena, Crime OIC of the Bandarawela Police had allowed the mob to do what they wanted submitted Solicitor General C.R. de Silva PC before the Bench of five Supreme Court Judges hearing the Bindunuwewa Murder Appeals, yesterday. The specially constituted Bench comprised Justices Asoka de Silva, T.B. Weerasuriya, Nihal Jayasinghe, N.E. Dissanayake and Raja Fernando. He submitted that the inaction of the fourth accused-appellant had given rise to criminal liability, "That was not a moral but a legal duty." He had a duty upon the statute. The Solicitor General submitted that the fourth accused-appellant not only had knowledge but had seen the smoke coming out of the billets of the inmates within the camp. He had the possibility of preventing the harm that befell on the victims of the massacre. The SG submitted that the main concern of the fourth accused-appellant should be to protect the detainees since they were in the State custody; but not to protect the property or to keep the peace in the area. He further submitted that the accused-appellant was armed with a T-56 rifle; more over, he was in charge of around 60 Police officers. "Even with out the summoning officers from outside he could have protected the inmates with the available number of Police officers, had he fired at the mob when they were broken into the camp, he could have prevented the massacre" The court quarried as to how the fourth accused-appellant alone convicted when there were other police officers who were guarding the perimeter of the camp. The SG answered that the IP Karunasena was in charge of the whole operation. He further submitted that fourth accused-appellant was in the vicinity of the camp premises and should have rushed to the buildings which were set on fire by the mob. SG C.R. de Silva PC contended that if the fourth respondent had not gone there, he was duty bound to explain it. The SG submitted that although the fourth accused-appellant had given evidence, he had failed to explain it. Earlier, the court acquitted fifth accused-appellant T.R.R. Ratnayaka when the SG informed the court that he would not support the conviction on the basis of lack of evidence. Dr. Ranjit Fernando concluded his submissions on behalf of the 1-3 appellants, three villagers of Bindunuwewa and D.S. Wijesinghe PC for the fourth accused-appellant Crime OIC Bandarawela. The five accused-appellants M.A. Samy, D.M.S. Dissanayake, R.M. Premananda, S.D. Karunasena and T.R.R. Ratnayaka cited the Attorney General as the respondent. They were convicted and sentenced to death by the specially constituted Trial-at-Bar on July 1. They were initially charged with 83 counts including unlawful assembly, committing the murder on 28 inmates and attempted murder on 14 others at the Bindunuwewa Rehabilitation Centre at Bandarawela on October 25, 2000. Solicitor General Chitranjan R. de Silva PC with Senior State Counsel Nihal Jayamanna and the State Counsel Priyantha Nawana appeared for the Attorney General. Dr. Ranjit Fernando appeared for the 1-3 accused-appellants. D.S. Wijesinghe PC appeared for the four accused-appellants. The SG would resume his submissions on July 29. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
