Kotakethana murders: Man sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence
It was purely circumstantial evidence that led the Colombo High Court to conclude this week that the prosecution had established that Lokugamhewage Dharshana alias Raju was responsible for the double murder of a mother and daughter, Nayana Nilmini and Kavindya Chaturangi, in their home at Kotakethana on January 31, 2012.
Handing down the death penalty to the accused, Judge Vikum A. Kaluarachchi said the murders were proved beyond any reasonable doubt by vital evidence such as a blood stained manna knife and a missing pair of earrings, belonging to Nayana.
Around 10 p. m. on Fe b r u a r y 2, 2012, Marawila Patabandige Ariyawansha, a neighbour of the victims, said he received a call from Nilmini’s husband Rohitha. He said he had been trying to reach her phone but there had been no response. Ariyawansha had gone there thereafter. After many failed attempts to get a response, he had gone to the back of the house to find the kitchen door slightly ajar. The house was in darkness.He had then informed his son about this, and contacted the police thereafter.
Ratnapura Police officer Sarath had arrived at the scene. Ariyawansa who had also been there had attempted to enter the house, but was stopped by officer Sarath, who had pointed to blood stained footprints on the floor leading from inside to the door.
When police officers finally entered the house they found Nilmini’s body sprawled across a bed in a room.
According to the evidence given in court, the blood stain was slightly dried up. Police had also observed a blood pattern, which implicated that the victim was dragged to a room at the back of the house.
Chief Inspector Nimal, a crime scene officer recovered a knife blade and knife with a handle from the bed. He also found two slippers, covered in blood. There were also several bloodstained footprints around the room, however the Police were not able to link the footprints to the killer.
Kavindya’s body was found inside a drain at the Opatha Estate at Kotakethana by the third prosecution witness who was on his way to chop wood on February 2, 2012. He was quick to inform the estate watcher, who then notified the Police.
The body of the girl was facing upwards when she was found, a dark green school bag was also observed about 600 feet away from her. Her body was wrapped in three bed sheets.
The first piece of evidence for the prosecution was that of a market owner, Padmakumara who claimed Nilmini used to stand outside his shop, waiting for her daughter to finish her classes. He had last seen the two at 8.30 pm on January 31, 2012.
This evidence was strengthened by the post- mortem examination reports which stated the deaths of Nilmini and Kavindya could have occurred on January 31 2012.
Nilmini’s son, Kusal Chaturanga, informed the court that the accused lived in the neighbouring house, a few feet away from where Nilmini lived. This house was owned by Raju’s brother Dharmasiri, a former provincial councillor.
He said his mother had prior to her death told him ‘ Raju’ had yelled at her, claiming she had informed the police about his ne phew Sampat h , Dharmasiri’s son, had possessed drugs. Prior to this, Nilmini and Kavindya had come across a packet of drugs, while they were helping out at a wedding held in Dharmasiri’s house. Raju who observed this was quick to grab the parcel containing the drugs. The court case against Sampath corroborated this.
Through this, Raju’s motive to kill the victims was established. The defence questioned the son as to why he did not mention this to the police at the early stages of the investigation.
He said: "I was mourning the loss of my mother and sister and the way the accused were acting by serving tea and checking up on the houses, did not lead me to suspect them."
The court accepted this. The court said it was strange that despite the close relationship the family shared with the victims, neither Raju nor his wife had attended the funeral or the seventh day almsgiving.
Furthermore, according to the evidence led by the defence, Raju’s son stated that when he went to sleep on the night of January 31, 2012, his parents were both awake. He said that though his parents usually slept in their room, when he woke up the next morning, his father Raju was sleeping on a chair in the hall.
Raju's dock statement showed the court a lack of explanation on his part as to how he spent January 31 2012.
As the evidence of Dharmasiri was led, the court observed that he had on numerous instances described the incident to have occurred on January 31 2012. But, upon further questioning, he stated this was a mistake. However, the court remained suspicious of his constant remembrance of the January 31, 2012.
Dharmasiri’s evidence did not prove he was present in the vicinity on the date the incident took place. But, he did add that his brother’s usual routine was to go to work around 8.00 am. And since Raju had earlier stated in court, he didn’t go to work that day, this led the court to believe that Raju had an opportunity to commit the murders.
A vital aspect, connecting the murders to Raju was the manna knife. This was because the post-mortem examinations conducted on Nilmini and Kavindya, showed the fatal injuries were caused by a sharp, heavy weapon.
DIG Jagath Rohana, who had functioned as the Officer- In- Charge of the Murder Investigation Unit of the CID, following a court order, he had accompanied Raju to his house in Kahawatte, Ratnapura.
On a disclosure by Raju, the manna knife was discovered from under a concrete slab at the back of the house. Two of Nilmini's earrings, were also found from a space on the wall inside the accused’s house.
The officer informed the court that if it was not for Raju’s direction, the manna knife and the earrings could not have been discovered by anyone else.
These recoveries proved to be the vital link to the case.
The forensic analysis of the manna knife revealed a strand of hair, about 5 centimetres in length. A brown patch of blood was observed between the gap created by the missing wire and the blade of the knife. While the strand of hair did not create a pattern with any of the DNA samples of both victims, the brown patch, proved to be a match with the DNA samples acquired from Nilmini.
This proved to be the strongest link that bound the chain of evidence to prove that Raju was the killer of Nilmini.
But, it was the bed sheet on which Nilmini’s body was found in her home that led to the connection of Kavindya’s murder. The forensic analysis on the sheet observed four stains, of which one matched the DNA of Nilmini, while two others matched that of Kavindya.
This proved to the court that though Kavindya’s body was found at the Opatha Estate, she was murdered in the house with her mother. Furthermore according to the Judicial Medical Officer’s opinion, it was clear that her injuries too could have been inflicted by the same manna knife.
A person called Sirisena who worked with Raju, gave evidence in court to say Raju had used this manna knife at work. However, after February 2, 2012, he had not seen the knife. Examining the knife in Court, Sirisena also said, a wire on the base of the knife was missing. His evidence, coupled with the court’s observation that the absence of the wire, depicted a lighter spot on the base of the knife proved that the knife was in fact an old one, used by Raju.
The final clues were the earrings, which according to her son, Nilmini had always worn. But, at the initial investigation no such earrings were found on her body, though they were later proven to be the ones recovered from the accused.
The court observed that Nilmini’s injuries were of such a nature that she was bound to have screamed out in pain when they were inflicted. Nevertheless, as claimed by the accused, who lived in the neighbouring house, no such screams were heard by them.
Instead they had only decided to investigate after a phone call was received by Rohitha Sellahewa. This gave rise to further suspicion. The court came to the conclusion that if accused did commit the crime, he and his household would act like they didn’t know of the crime in the first place. The crime scene investigations showed no signs of a break in or a forced entry. Therefore, the only logical conclusion was that the crime was committed by a known individual. This only seemed to work against Raju, who was proven to be the only individual to have had the opportunity to commit the crime.
Rienzi Arsakularatne PC with Attorney- at- law Namal Karunaratna appeared for the accused while Deputy Solicitor General Lakmali Karunaratne with Senior State Counsel Maheshika Silva appeared for the prosecution.
The first piece of evidence for the prosecution was that of a market owner, Padmakumara who claimed Nilmini used to stand outside his shop, waiting for her daughter to finish her classes. He had last seen the two at 8.30 pm on January 31, 2012.