Court questions absence of statements from two crucial witnesses in Kapila case

By Bhagya Silva

Colombo, May 19 (Daily Mirror) - The Colombo Fort Magistrate today questioned the absence of statements from two crucial witnesses connected to the death of former SriLankan Airlines Chief Executive Officer Kapila Chandrasena.

The Colombo Crimes Division also informed the court that no CCTV recordings had been recorded at the deceased’s residence despite the cameras being operational.

The CCD had previously informed the court that the CCTV cameras at the residence of Aravinda de Silva were operational, but no recordings had been made.

These facts were presented through a further report filed by the Colombo Crimes Division prior to the questioning at the magisterial inquiry, which was held for the third time today before Colombo Fort Magistrate Pasan Amarasena.

An officer of the Colombo Crimes Division stated that there were two parking areas beneath the residence of Aravinda de Silva through which entry to the house could also be gained. However, investigations conducted so far had not confirmed that any outsider had entered the house in that manner.

The officer further stated that 11 unidentified medicinal tablets had been found at the location where the death occurred, and sought an order to forward these 11 tablets together with the deceased’s blood samples to the Government Analyst.

The officer also requested an order to forward the DVR device found at the location of the death to the Government Analyst in connection with the investigation.

At that stage, the Magistrate inquired whether the CCTV footage at the deceased’s residence had been examined.

Responding to the question, the officer of the Colombo Crimes Division stated that although CCTV cameras at the deceased’s residence were operational, no recordings had been made.

The officer further requested that both DVR devices be forwarded to the Government Analyst.

The officer also stated that an engineer connected to the operation of the CCTV system had been summoned to testify today.

It was further stated that two employees working at the house, the officer who installed the CCTV cameras and the nursing officer were scheduled to provide evidence today.

At that point, the Magistrate questioned whether statements had been recorded from the two sureties who had accompanied the deceased home after obtaining bail, stating that they were two main witnesses connected to the incident.

In response, the officer stated that it had been difficult to record statements from them.

The Magistrate then stated, “If the two main witnesses are not coming forward to give statements, shouldn’t they be mandatorily summoned to provide evidence? Aren’t they more important witnesses than the other witnesses? Even their names were mentioned during the evidence, weren’t they? And if they do not give statements, you can obtain an order from me and then take necessary action.”

In response, the officer stated that facts would be presented through a motion.