SHAH ALAM: There is no direct evidence to show that there was a homicidal death involving cosmetics millionaire, Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others at a farm in Tanjung Sepat, Banting on Aug 30, 2010, the High Court here was told yesterday.
Counsel Manjeet Singh Dhillon, who is representing first accused, N Pathmanabhan, also said that there was no direct evidence to show that Sosilawati, bank officer Noorhisham Mohamad, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim and her driver, Kamaruddin Shamsuddin were murdered by the four accused.
“There is no direct evidence that the named persons are dead or that they have been murdered on the date and time and place stated in the charge. Not a single witness has testified on oath and given any evidence concerning any of the ingredients necessary to make out a case,” he said in his submission.
Pathmanabhan and three farm workers T Thilaiyalagan, R Matan and R Khatavarayan are charged with the murder of Sosilawati, 47, Noorhisham, 38, Ahmad Kamil, 32 and Kamaruddin, 44, at Lot 2001, Jalan Tanjong Layang, Tanjung Sepat, between 8.30 pm and 9.45 pm on August 30, 2010, and face the mandatory death sentence, if convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
Manjeet Singh said the prosecution’s case appeared to be simply that Sosilawati went to Banting with some others, purportedly they went to Pathmanabhan’s farm and they never returned.
He said that there were a lot of people on the farm including those who remain unidentified but whose DNAs were there, but the prosecution wants the court to disregard this and just concentrate on the four accused and say ‘hang them’ because that is what they want. “There is no credible, independent evidence of who did what, when, where or how on the farm and if the prosecution tried, they failed miserably.
“This court cannot surely give in to their demands just like that. The law has to be upheld. The law and evidence in this case say there is no credible case and that must, I submit, be the rightful verdict at the end,” he said.
Manjeet Singh further submitted that this case received wide coverage in the media which seemed to have their own theory on the matter based on rampant speculation and that the four accused would have stood very little chance of a fair trial and a judgment based on law and evidence. Therefore, he said, the court needed to ignore the myriad theories suggested and had to listen only to the law and the evidence and allow nothing else to pollute the reasoning.
“This matter has to be adjudicated on the evidence and evidence alone, laid before the court and nothing else. There is also neither room nor place for suspicion, more so when all that the prosecution is doing is relying on flimsy circumstantial evidence,” he said. Manjeet Singh also urged the court to consider new evidence presented in the trial through counsel Roslie Sulle who represented mechanic K. Sarawanan in 2010, that the lawyer played a role in the manipulation of witnesses.
Sarawanan, 22, and another man, U. Suresh, 29, are currently serving 20 years’ jail at Sungai Udang prison in Melaka after pleading guilty to four counts of disposing evidence related to the alleged murders.
“Was there a crime on the farm on the evening of Aug 30, 2010? The blogs and soothsayers seem to want to say there was and the prosecution speculates similarly, but there is no proof,” he said.
The hearing before judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir continues today. — Bernama