The testimonies of the four accused in cosmetics millionaire Sosilawati Lawiya’s murder case should be rejected as it was unreliable and unsafe, the High Court was told today.   

Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Saiful Edris Zainuddin submitted that the fourth accused’s evidence was in conflict with the testimonies of the other three.   

This is especially on the issue of whether Sosilawati and her friends were present at Ladang Gadong on Aug 30, 2010 and their involvement in murdering at least three victims, namely bank officer Noorhisham Mohamad, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim and Sosilawati's driver, Kamaruddin Shamsuddin, he added.   

“As a result of that, the question that arises is, which of the defence versions is true or capable of raising reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.

“Because all the evidence of the accused are unreliable, including the fourth accused’s, any evidence from them which is inconsistent with the prosecution’s case is unsafe, unreliable and should be rejected,” he said.   

NONE N Pathmanabhan and three farm workers T Thilaiyalagan, R Matan and R Khatavarayan are charged with the murder of Sosilawati, 47 ( right ), Noorhisham, 38, Ahmad Kamil, 32 and Kamaruddin, 44, at Lot 2001, Jalan Tanjong Layang, Tanjung Sepat, between 8.30pm and 9.45pm on Aug 30, 2010, and face the mandatory death sentence, if convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

Saiful Edris further submitted that with the ‘disastrous effect’ displayed by the fourth accused and the rest of the accused persons, none of their evidence which is exculpatory in nature was reliable.  

Hence, he said, the prosecution’s contention on the issue of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 was still intact and should be accepted without a doubt.

Saiful Edris also urged the court to revisit the evidence of similar occurrences as put forward by two prosecution witnesses, namely Samson Nahar Mohamed Dali and Usharani Sethuraman, who confirmed that their husbands met Pathmanabhan on business matters and have been missing since.

He stated that, Pathmanabhan’s former maid, Siti Hamidah Karnax, had also testified that she had seen these men at the farm and witnessed a bonfire similar to the one in Sosilawati’s case.  

He further submitted that there was a close resemblance in facts where the two men met with Pathmanabhan at Ladang Gadong just like the four individuals in Sosilawati’s case and all of them are still missing to date.

RM3mil cheque to pay staff bonus

Saiful Edris also said that it had been established earlier that Sosilawati had gone to Banting to discuss a land matter with Pathmanabhan and expedite a RM3 million cheque to pay staff bonus and for her personal use for Hari Raya which was around the corner.

He said, according to bank officer, Yvonne Tiong Guat Choo (98th prosecution witness) as at Aug 30, 2010 (the day Sosilawati and friends had gone missing) Pathmanabhan only had RM1.38 million in his account which was insufficient to clear the cheque.

“Pathmanabhan and his counsel (Manjit Singh Dhillon) were trying to argue that the insufficient funds in Pathmanabhan's account was due to the account being frozen by the police but they failed to adduce any evidence to that effect. Furthermore, Pathmanabhan was only arrested on Sept 11, 2010, two days after the date on the cheque.

“To sum up, the motive of insufficient funds to honour the cheque was a very compelling reason to kill Sosilawati and her friends. And this motive remains unrebutted,” he said.    

The hearing before judge Akhtar Tahir resumes on May 21.  

- Bernama