This murder case is the true story of the thriller movie called Dadayama directed by Vasantha Obesekara in 1984. It stars Ravindra Randeniya and Swarna Mallawarachchi in lead roles along with Somy Rathnayake and Irangani Serasinghe and others.
This tragedy happened on March 14, 1959. J. Ananda (1st Defendant) was a playful person from an aristocratic family. He worked as a teacher in a school in Kalutara. He had known Adeline since November 1956, an intelligent and attractive young woman. These two had a romantic relationship over time. The social status of her family was lower than that of Ananda’s family. However, he lived with Adeline under a different name.Adeline became pregnant with an illegitimate child in August 1957 and the father of the child was Ananda. Therefore later he promised to marry her.
Marriage contract
But on other hand, Ananda was friendly with a family with a good social status than Adeline’s family. He occasionally stayed in that family home, as a result, he was proposed to have a marriage contract with the young daughter of this family.
After discovering Ananda’s true identity, on January 19, of 1959, Adeline sent a letter to the principal of the Kalutara school informing him that Ananda is the father of her child and he had promised to marry her. This letter was later shown to Ananda by the principal of the school. When he saw this letter, he became angry with her.
On March, 2, of 1959, Adeline left her home in Katugasthota for Kalutara to see her father and also to get some money from Ananda. That day, the pregnant Adeline came near the fence of the Kalutara School and gave a message to Ananda who was at the school at that time. After that, he came out and took her away in a car. He owned a Fiat car registered under No.01 Sri 6265.
He then left her for a few days with the family at Alo Singho’s house. He had come in his car to see her those few days. One day his Fiat car stopped near Singho’s house and blew the horn. Alo Singho came and talked to him and then returned home. Then Adeline, dressed in a saree and carrying a black handbag and an umbrella, got into the car. Alo Singho’s brother (2nd defendant) had also joined Ananda on this occasion.
On the afternoon of March, 14, they had refuelled at a petrol station in Horana and left for Puttalam. They had arrived at a hotel in Puttalam around 9.30 pm and had dinner there. Later, as planned by Anananda the pregnant woman Adeline was pushed out of the Car near the 27th-milepost on the Puttalam - Anuradhapura road in the Thibiriwewa area and killed by running his car over her body.
The life of Adeline Vitharana who arrived in Kalutara from Katugasthota on March, 2, ended on March, 14 on the Anuradhapura - Puttalam road. The reason for all this may have been that she was born to a lower caste family and a hindrance to the playful life that Ananda enjoyed.
The evidence further revealed that Ananda had gone to get a rental car on March, 14, for his plan to kill Adeline by using a rental car, but there was no car available on that day. After that, he had rented a car on March, 15. He travelled from Puttalam to Anuradhapura on March, 15, in his rental car. But on the 14th he had used his Fiat car for the murder.
On March, 16, while servicing Ananda’s Fiat car, Adeline Vitharana’s hair was found in the wheel and under the vehicle. The first suspect Ananda was charged under Section 296 of the Penal Code in connection with the offence of murder, based on this evidence and other facts found in his statement given to Inspector Dharmarathne on March 22.
First charge - the offence of conspiracy to murder Adeline Vitharana.
Second charge - in the course of the same transaction commit the offense of murdering Adeline Vitharana.
After concerning all the evidence Ananda was convicted of murder and he and Alo Singho’s brother were acquitted of the first charge of conspiracy to commit murder by the jury.
However, after the verdict of the High Court Anananda appealed to the Supreme Court through his lawyer Ralph Millner.
He came up with the argument that Ananda has given the statement to the police officer which amounts to be a confession and that cannot be used as a piece of admissible evidence according to the Evidence Ordinance and Criminal Procedure Code of Sri Lanka.
Transaction
And the second ground was that there is a connection between the first charge and the second charge in the indictment by the phrase ‘in the course of the same transaction and since both defendants were acquitted of the first charge of conspiracy to commit murder, the first defendant should not be charged only for the second charge of commit murder.
Considering the facts and evidence of the case and referring to many other case laws the Supreme Court held that the trial judge has not exercised his discretion wrongly, and it could not be argued that the phrase ‘in the course of the same transaction’ in the second charge pertained to the first charge and that the accused could not commit murder in the course of a transaction of which has previously been found not guilty. For the second argument of the appellant, the Supreme Court held that statement made to a police officer could not be merely a confession if the clues obtained from the statement and other evidence matched.
Accordingly, after considering all the facts of the case, the Supreme Court has directed the queen to dismiss the appeal and the appellant-accused should be subjected to the same punishment given by the High Court.