The fourth accused in the murder trial of cosmetics millionaire Sosilawati Lawiya and three other individuals at the High Court today, denied that he applied to be placed under the witness

protection programme because he wanted financial aid.    

Cross-examined by third accused R Matan’s lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad, R Kathavarayan also denied that he did so after failing to obtain money from first accused N Pathmanabhan.

Instead, Kathavarayan said he applied for the programme because he feared for the safety of his wife and children.   

The accused also said he did not know the programme was under the Prime Minister’s Department (JPM).   

“I say, that’s why there’s a JPM officer observing the trial since Jan 14, because you have applied for the witness protection programme,” said Amer Hamzah, and Kathavarayan denied he knew about it.   

To another question by Amer Hamzah, the witness further denied knowing that under the Witness Protection Act 2009, his family would be entitled to financial assistance.

“I put it to you that after you failed to get money from Pathmanabhan, you decided to apply for the witness protection programme to obtain financial and other assistance,” said Amer Hamzah, and the accused responded, “No.”  

Kathavarayan, 32, together with Pathmanabhan, 43, T Thilaiyalagan, 21, and R Matan, 22, have been ordered to enter their defence on a charge of murdering Sosilawati, 47, bank officer Noorhisham Mohamad, 38, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32, and Sosilawati’s driver, Kamaruddin Shamsuddin, 44.   

They allegedly committed the offence at Ladang Gadong, Lot 2001, Jalan Tanjong Layang, Tanjung Sepat, Banting between 8.30pm and 9.45pm on Aug 30, 2010.

They face the mandatory death sentence, upon conviction, under Section 302 of the Penal Code.   

Earlier in the proceedings, during cross-examination by Thilaiyalagan’s lawyer Gurbachan Singh, Kathavarayan denied telling Thilaiyalagan about Pathmanabhan instructing his (Kathavarayan) family to vacate his bungalow.    

“When you asked Thilaiyalagan to intervene, he refused and you became very angry with him,” said Gurbachan Singh, and the accused denied the suggestion.   

“I put it to you, that you testified against Thilaiyalagan because you held a grudge after he refused to speak to Pathmanabhan,” said Gurbachan Singh, to which Kathavarayan said, “No.”  

“I put it to you, when Pathmanabhan told your family to move out from his house and you asked him for RM100,000 on Nov 14 2012, Thilaiyalagan heard the conversation,” said Gurbachan Singh and Kathavarayan replied, “No.”   

The trial before Judge Akhtar Tahir resumes tomorrow.  

- Bernama