by Alex Josey
Replying to a question by the DPP, Datuk Mahadevan said Professor Devadass may be competent to give his findings after an observation of one hour and 10 minutes, but personally he would not like to come to court to give an opinion within that time. Earlier Datuk Mahadevan said he would like to observe a person for 90 days and subject him to investigations. Datuk Mahadevan said the seven tests carried out on Karthigesu were correct, but they were incomplete as there was no elaboration or comment from the doctor.
Asked by the Judge what was missing from the medical report, Datuk Mahadevan said there was for example an indication from what Karthigesu told a doctor at the University Hospital, that he had taken a few beers. Datuk Mahadevan said the doctor who attended to him should have made him walk in a straight line and made him touch his nose with his finger. These tests were all the more important because Karthigesu said he had taken a few beers. He said the blood alcohol level should be determined because this procedure was important to rule out whether a person was pretending or malingering.
Acting Supt A.R. Cornelius gave evidence that in April 1979 he was in the research and planning section of the CID. This section was responsible for going through investigation papers and making appropriate recommendations to officers on the ground for the prevention of crime. He was assigned to the Jean Sinnappa case to assist ASP Ramli Yusoff, the investigating officer. Answering a question from Mr Ponnudurai, counsel for the defence, Acting Supt Cornelius said on 13 April 1979 he was with ASP Ramli when he found the love-letters written to Jean by her Sri Lankan lover, Dr Narada Warnasurya. The letters were found in a handbag inside a cupboard in Jean’s bedroom in Karthigesu’s house at Jalan Solak Pulai, Klang. Acting Supt. Cornelius said he made four typewritten copies of the letters. He gave two copies to DSP Godwin Anthony, retained one copy, and gave the fourth copy to the Director of the CID, Datuk Rahman bin Haji Ismail.
Witness said that on 11 April at about 10:30 pm, he went to see Brian Perera, Jean’s brother, in Kajang. The purpose of his visit was to find out if members of Jean’s family could assist in the investigation. No one mentioned anything about the letters. He subsequently sent word to Brian to go to Petaling Jaya police station. Brian went there at 6:10 pm on 28 April. He showed Brian copies of the love letters.
Mr Ponnudurai: What was his reaction?
Witness: He expressed surprise. He said this was the first time he’d seen them.
Acting Supt Cornelius said his team of officers held regular conferences to discuss progress. The meetings were chaired by DSP Godwin Anthony. One of the conferences was held on 17 April 1979. There were eight people present including the chairman. Witness said that the name of a prosecution witness, Bandhulananda Jayatilake, was not mentioned at this meeting. He could not recollect any officer saying he had recorded a statement from Jayatilake. The first he heard of this witness was from newspaper reports during the preliminary inquiry.
Re-examined, Acting Supt Cornelius said if the crime had been solved by 17 April then Karthigesu would have been arrested earlier than 26 April. Questioned by the Judge, witness said he could not say why the statement by Jayatilake was kept from him.
Judge: Is there any possibility that the statement was concocted?
Acting Supt Cornelius: I would not be able to say, my Lord.
Judge: Why not? Because of police loyalty?
Acting Supt Cornelius: No, my Lord.
The Judge remarked that it was very strange why Acting Supt. Cornelius was not told of Jayatilake’s statement.
Asked if other officers distrusted him, witness said, “If they distrusted me I would not have been at three of the conferences.”
Jayatilake was recalled by the defence for further cross-examination. He said he went to Karthigesu’s house on 16 April to ask Karthigesu to be a guarantor for a $3,000 loan which he wanted to take from MCIS. Karthigesu signed the form, but the loan was not approved because Karthigesu was not a member of MCIS.
Re-examined by the DPP, witness swore that on 16 April, when he went to see Karthigesu it was with the honest intention of asking him to sign the form. The visit was on his own. He had not been sent by anyone.
Defence Submission
The defence also recalled for cross-examination the investigation officer, ASP Ramli. Mr Ponnudurai said it was police theory that Karthigesu committed the crime and washed himself at the pond. Did he search the pond?
ASP Ramli: No, my Lord.
The witness added the responsibility for searching the area had been given to DSP Godwin Anthony with the assistance of the dog-handler and Police Field Force. He said he was not aware if DSP Godwin Anthony searched the pond.
Replying to a question, ASP Ramli said Jean’s husband had been killed in a road accident on 1st January, 1978 at the junction of Jalan 222 and the Federal Highway.
Answering a question, ASP Ramli said he recorded Karthigesu’s statement on 10th April.
Mr Ponnudurai began his submission by telling the jury they had spent 29 days listening to evidence involving a tragic drama. In coming to their conclusions they had to rely solely on the evidence they had heard in Court, not on what they heard outside the Court, or what they read in the newspapers. Mr Ponnudurai said the charge his client faced was very serious. Karthigesu was arrested on 26 April 1979 and charged in Court on 9th May with Jean’s murder. The charge had at first stated the offence was committed at the 11th mile Federal Highway and on 30 July the charge was amended to read Pilmoor Estate, Jalan Lapangan Terbang. When the trial began in the High Court, the charge stated the offence was committed at Pilmoor Estate between 11:00–11:35 pm, and at the close of the prosecution case the charge was amended to read between 11:10–11:40 pm and the place was amended again to the 11th mile Federal Highway. Mr Ponnudurai said the prosecution had been toying with the life of a man, throwing him from pillar to post, not knowing what charge to frame against him. Counsel reminded the jury that they were the sole judges of fact. They should first consider the prosecution case. If they felt the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case, then they should acquit and discharge Karthigesu. If they thought there was a prima facie, then they should consider the defence and decide if the defence had cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.
Mr Ponnudurai said the prosecution was trying to prove the case solely through the evidence of doctors. The prosecution would say the accused was putting on an act even before the incident, ‘but you can’t go on speculation’.
The prosecution would say the killing of Jean was a crime of passion and jealousy, that Karthigesu knew about the letters Jean had received from her Sri Lankan lover, Dr Narada Warnasurya, and that he had planned the murder. It was also the contention of the prosecution that Karthigesu murdered her at the 11th mile Federal Highway and that he washed himself at the nearby pond.
Mr Ponnudurai said Karthigesu and Jean were seen at the junction of Jalan 222 and the Federal Highway and the first person who saw Jean’s car parked at the scene was prosecution witness Abdul Wahab bin Anu Amin. This was at 11:30 pm on 6 April 1979. If the accused had done the killing he had ‘17 minutes to do all this’. Counsel said DSP Godwin Anthony had told the Court the scene was dark and the lights of three police vehicles had to be used to search the area. “In these circumstances don’t you expect to find some mud on his shoes, and water on his shirt? You have to ask yourself whether you can convict a man on mere speculation.”
Mr Ponnudurai said the prosecution contended that Karthigsu was pretending to be unconscious, and since he was found near the car, he therefore committed the murder. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and on the extra-judicial confession Karthigesu made to prosecution witness, Bandhulananda Jayatilake. Counsel said that if the accused had told the doctor at the Accident and Emergency unit he had had a few drinks, the obvious thing to do was to put him through a blood test. This was not done.
Mr Ponnudurai said there was evidence that Karthigesu was mumbling when he was found by the police at the scene
but the prosecution said he hoodwinked the police officers at the scene. But there was medical evidence that Karthigesu was drowsy on admission to University Hospital. The staff nurse said he had a pulse rate of 120 which was high, and it denoted high emotions. Consultant psychiatrist Datuk (Dr) M. Mahadevan had said the accused should have been observed for at least 24 hours with hourly reports. Karthigesu was discharged from the hospital after five hours and 20 minutes and there were only two reports—one when he was admitted and the other when he was discharged. Datuk Mahadevan had told the Court that alcohol aggravated a state of concussion. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence that Karthigesu was malingering or pretending. “But Datuk Mahadevan said Karthigesu’s 12 cranial nerves were grossly intact which means he was not malingering. This one statement alone destroys the prosecution’s case,” declared Mr Ponnudurai.
Turning to the evidence of Brian Perera, Jean’s brother, Mr Ponnudurai said Perera had told the court Karthigesu had taken the love letters to Kajang and shown them to him. But Acting Supt. Cornelius, a defence witness, said when the police showed Brian the letters in Petaling Jaya he had expressed surprise because that was the first time he had seen the letters. The evidence of Acting Supt. Cornelius has thrown more than a reasonable doubt on Brian’s evidence. Mr Ponnudurai said Perera testified that Jean was a strong-willed person. She earned about $1,500 month, and if she did not really like living with her mother-in-law she could have moved out to live on her own. Mr Ponnudurai asked the jury not to be swayed by the allegations of the prosecution that Karthigesu was pretending all the way, even when he went house-hunting with Jean.
Counsel said there was evidence that Karthigesu and Jean went out often and her mother-in-law had not objected. He said if Karthigesu wanted to do away with Jean, he could have done it on any one of those occasions and not on the day she was killed because he had been seen by so many people.
Mr Ponnudurai said when defence was called, Karthigesu could elect to remain silent, could make a statement from the dock or give evidence from the witness box on oath and subject himself to cross-examination. These were rights given to accused persons in all criminal cases. Karthigesu had chosen to make a statement from the dock but what should be borne in mind was whether his statement was corroborated or not—the fact that he lost his car keys and his usual Friday night outings with Jean.
Referring to the evidence of the accountant who said he saw two cars parked at the scene, Mr Ponnudurai said if the prosecution had been fair it would have recorded a statement from him, but it did not do it because the prosecution theory would have been blown sky-high.
Mr Ponnudurai said another piece of most suspicious evidence was that Acting Supt. Cornelius had said he did not know anything about Jayatilake’s statement to the police until he read about it in the newspapers. Why should this have been kept away from a senior police officer? Mr Ponnudurai said it was his contention that this evidence was concocted by the prosecution to support its case. He asked the jury not to place any weight on the statement by Jayatilake and on what Karthigesu was supposed to have told him.
Mr Ponnudurai concluded his submission by claiming that the defence had raised more than a reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s story. “Accordingly I ask you, the jury, to acquit and discharge Karthigesu.”
The DPP’s Submission
The DPP (T.S. Sambanthamurthi) told the jury that circumstantial evidence, if convincing, was more cogent than the evidence of an eye-witness. The evidence against Karthigesu was circumstantial coupled with an extra-judicial confession. No witness saw Karthigesu plunging the knife through Jean’s body. “There is no rule of law which says that if there is no eye-witness to a murder, that the accused should not be found guilty of that crime on circumstantial evidence alone.”
The DPP said circumstantial evidence should be “such that when you look at all the surrounding circumstances you find a series of undesigned unexpected coincidences that, as a reasonable person, you find your judgement is compelled to one conclusion that that person is the murderer. It is my humble submission that you members of the jury, you as the sole judge of facts must consider the several links of circumstantial evidence, not link by link, but as a whole. Where the evidence is wholly circumstantial, what has to be considered is not only the strength of each individual strand of evidence but also the combined strength of these strands when twisted together to make a rope.”
The DPP argued that Karthigesu had every opportunity and reason to kill Jean. “It is my submission that there are numerous trends, numerous links of circumstantial evidence which when linked together and considered as a whole, closely point to the guilt of the accused and no one else as the very murderer.”
The DPP said there were two questions the jury must answer. Did Karthigesu kill his sister-in-law? If he did, did he attack her with the intention of causing her death? Intention was proved by the type of injuries Jean sustained, the type of weapon used to inflict the injuries, and the knowledge of probable consequence. He said the person who inflicted the wounds on Jean knew they would cause death, and he intended to cause her death and nothing less.
The DPP said ASP Ramli had established that this was not a case of robbery because all the jewellery Jean wore was still on her body. Karthigesu had also not been robbed. The DPP said when ASP Ramli examined the car he found streaks of blood on the whole inside of the left front door from top to bottom and on the front left half of the windscreen. ASP Ramli said the gearbox area, the gear handle, the steering wheel and dashboard were wiped clean. He also felt that the inside of the car was cleaned up and bloodstains found near the right front door handle were deliberately done. The DPP said ASP Ramli then went to the hospital where he saw Karthigesu on a trolley in the accident and emergency room. When he. spoke to Karthigesu he could not get any answer, for Karthigesu just murmured. According to ASP Ramli, Karthigesu kept still when his clothes were removed. Karthigesu did not have his purse, his identity card, driving licence, not even the bill from Hotel Century. The DPP suggested the articles were in the clothes worn at the time of the murder. Could it be believed that a person would take his girlfriend to a good hotel without his identification papers, his driving licence and money? The DPP said Karthigesu did not have his singlet on when his clothes were removed.
The DPP then referred to an anonymous letter which Karthigesu had handed to ASP Ramli. The letter was signed ‘A Man of Fair Play’. The DPP submitted that the letter had been ‘manufactured’ by Karthigesu himself. The contents of the letter were based on the facts mentioned in the love-letters written by Dr Narada Warnasurya of Sri Lanka to Jean. Those facts would not be known to anyone who had not seen the letters. ASP Ramli had testified that the love letters were recovered from a handbag in an unlocked wardrobe in Jean’s room. They were accessible to everyone in the house. Brian Perera, Jean’s brother, had testified that Karthigesu brought the letters to their house in Kajang some time in December 1978.
The DPP dwelt upon the conflicting evidence as to where Karthigesu was lying at the scene of the crime. Two witnesses did not see Karthigesu near the gate, while two others saw him about 10 feet away. When the police found him he was in a different position. The DPP suggested he was pretending. The DPP added that if Karthigesu had seen the killing of Jean he would have told someone when he was taken to the hospital.
The DPP remarked that Professor Devadass in his evidence did not say that Karthigesu missed Jean, nor did he show any sign to indicate her death was a personal tragedy.
The DPP described Karthigesu as a jealous and angry man who was mad over the relationship between Jean and her Sri Lankan lover, Dr Narada Wamasurya. No amount of cross-examination could destroy the fact that Karthigesu was harbouring a feeling of ill-will towards Jean. Urging the jury to return a verdict of guilty the DPP said: “It is my submission to you that it is the accused who murdered Jean deliberately. Justice, he said, did not mean only justice to the accused but also to the community. The res
ponsibility of a jury is to consider its verdict. What would be the consequence of your verdict is not your concern. It is the concern of his Lordship. You should not be moved by sentiment or emotion.”
Mr Sambanthamurthi said it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but not beyond a shadow of doubt. “The degree of proof need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability.” “If,” he said, “the evidence against a man is so strong as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed, of course it is possible, but not in the least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” The DPP submitted that Karthigesu committed a preplanned murder. He pointed out that consultant psychiatrist Professor G. Devadass in his evidence stated that Karthigesu displayed anger whenever Jean’s name was mentioned. Karthigesu told the professor she had been an unfaithful woman to many men for a long time. He said he was afraid he would talk about the many quarrels he had with Jean. The DPP said this contradicted defence evidence that Karthigesu and Jean were happy. “What was in the heart of Karthigesu they did not know. What was his opinion of her? Taking her to Pangkor Island does not mean he loved her.” Karthigesu had carried on an amorous relationship with Jean until she met Dr Warnasurya on 5 September 1978. Later Dr Warnasurya came from Bangkok to see her and they stayed at the Apollo Hotel. Subsequently Dr Warnasurya went to Sri Lanka, but he continued to write to Jean. When Jean was in Bangkok for a holiday on 4 December 1978 Karthigesu ransacked her cupboard and found the love letters. He took them to Jean’s mother in Kajang and asked her to advise Jean to stop corresponding with the the doctor. If Karthigesu was not a jealous man, asked the DPP, why should he worry about a widow corresponding with the doctor? There was evidence to show that Karthigesu did not like Dr Warnasurya. In one of his letters to Jean the doctor had asked her to work out a formula to ‘rehabilitate my image’ in Karthigesu’s mind.