Second accused T Thilaiyalagan has neither known nor met cosmetics millionaire Sosilawati Lawiya and three other individuals who were allegedly murdered on Aug 30, 2010 at Ladang Gadong, Tanjung Sepat in Banting, the High Court was told today.

Therefore, counsel Gurbachan Singh, who is representing Thilaiyalagan, said there was no purpose for his client to commit such a serious crime, just because he is a worker in the farm owned by first accused, N Pathmanabhan, knowing full well the dire penalty for the offence of murder upon conviction.

“There is no sufficient or adequate evidence that the four persons are actually dead, leave alone being murdered, at the farm on Aug 30 between 8.30pm and 9.45pm.

“It is a most vital ingredient for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Even the presumption of death cannot be invoked under the Evidence Act 1950 before seven years are up,” he said in his submission.

Pathmanabhan and three farm workers Thilaiyalagan, R Matan and R Khatavarayan are charged with the murder of Sosilawati, 47, bank officer Noorhisham Mohamad, 38, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32, and Sosilawati’s driver, Kamaruddin Shamsuddin, 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.

Gurbachan further submitted that the court finding at the prima facie stage, that the four persons were beaten to death on the farm, was not borne by evidence.

He said, not only must the death of the four persons be proved as a fact, beyond any reasonable doubt, but also that they were murdered on the farm on Aug 30, between 8.30pm and 9.45pm, by the common intention of all the four accused.

“It is submitted that there is not an iota of evidence of common intention adduced by the prosecution, nor evidence from which this court can confidently make a finding of common intention,” he said.

On the two notes of proceedings involving the case of two prosecution witnesses, U Suresh and K Sarawanan, who were charged for disposing evidence related to the murder case, Gurbachan said both exhibits had no probative value but only had prejudicial effect, especially in view of the fact that both Suresh and Sarawanan were not even referred to, or confronted with both exhibits when cross-examined by the prosecution as hostile witnesses.

Suresh, 29, and Sarawanan, 22, are now serving 20 years’ imprisonment in Sungai Udang Prison, Malacca.

“Even if it is taken for the sake of argument that both notes of proceedings are technically admissable, your Lordship can, in the interest of justice, disregard the contents of both exhibits in the higher interest of justice,” he said.

On the evidence by the fourth accused, Kathavarayan, Gurbachan said although the defence team did not rely on his version, the court should accept his evidence as it would show that there was no crime of murder committed on Aug 30, as alleged in the charge, and that Sosilawati was alive on Sept 7, 2010 as seen by the fourth accused at a restaurant.

‘Cheque had no link with land sale’

He further submitted that the prosecution’s case was that the RM3 million cheque issued to Sosilawati was in respect of the sale of land transaction in 2010.

In fact, he said, the submission of the prosecution and the subsequent finding by court was completely misconceived and unsustainable as the land was already sold by Sosilawati, way back in 2008 to a company, Ample Quality Sdn Bhd.

“As such, the cheque had absolutely no link or nexus with the sale of land as there was no sale of the Penang land in 2010, it having been sold in 2008. There has been a complete misappreciation of evidence, causing an erroneous finding of fact, and this has occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice in that the very basis and foundation of the court’s decision in calling for the defence is non-existent,” he said.

Deputy public prosecutor Saiful Edris Zainuddin, in his submission earlier, said it had been established 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, 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, and the motive of insufficient funds to honour the cheque was a very compelling reason to kill Sosilawati and her friends.

Justice Akhtar Tahir is set to deliver his decision this Thursday.

- Bernama