©The New Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Rita Jong
SHAH ALAM: It was greed that drove lawyer N. Pathmanabhan to kill cosmetics millionaire Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya in a brutal manner three years ago.
The High Court today found that the accused’s unethical decision in acting for two opposing sides in a land deal, as well as acquiring interests in the transactions, had found himself caught in a web of deceit.
Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir, in his brief 15–page judgment which took 50 minutes to read, said Pathmanabhan had appeared for Sosilawati as the seller in a land deal, and had also acted for the buyer, which was Datuk Abdul Rahman Palil, a former assemblyman for Sementa.
“The accused’s actions were not only unethical but had also compromised his impartiality. He appeared for both Sosilawati and Rahman Palil in the same deal and by doing so, he was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea,” he said.
“On one hand was Sosilawati, a well known entrepreneur, and on the other was Rahman Palil, who was a powerful politician according to the accused.”
He said when pushed to the corner, Pathmanabhan took an easy route of eliminating one of the two and unfortunately, it was Sosilawati, as he was unable to honour a cheque issued to her.
“The rest of the persons accompanying Sosilawati were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Akhtar said this before sentencing Pathmanabhan and his three farm hands T. Thilaiyalagan, 22, R. Matan, 23, and R. Kathavarayan, 33, to death.
He found the four guilty of murdering Sosilawati, 47, bank officer Noorhisham Mohamad, 38, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32, and driver Kamaruddin Shansuddin, 44, at Ladang Gadong, Lot 2001 in Jalan Tanjong Layang, Tanjung Sepat, Banting, between 8.30pm and 9.45pm on Aug 30, 2010.
The judge said Pathmanabhan had in his defence denied meeting Sosilawati on the night of the incident at the farm and this was supported by Thilaiyalagan and Matan’s testimonies.
“He had distanced himself from whatever had befallen them (the victims),” he said.
“To me, his denial runs to counter the evidence of Sosilawati’s daughter that she was specifially informed by her mother that she was going to Banting to meet the accused over the clearance of two cheques.”
Sosilawati’s daughter, Akhtar said, had no axe to grind with the first accused, nor had the wives of the other three victims when they said their husbands had followed Sosilawati on a business matter.
“The names thrown by the defence of Rahman Palil and others, known to Sosilawati, were mere red herrings. These names did crop up during investigation and the fact that they were not called as witnesses shows that they had no role to play in this case,” he said.
“The telecommunication records (of the victims) also charted their journey right to the farm belonging to Pathmanabhan and the defence made no attempt to discredit this evidence.”
The judge also said he found that a witness, Siti Hamidah Karnax, an Indonesian maid who was working on the farm, to be a credible witness, who testified she saw a woman and three men on the farm the night of the incident.
(Siti Hamidah had in her evidence said she heard a woman scream and a fire burning as high as the neighbouring oil palm trees).
Akthar said the four accused failed to explain the items belonging to the victims as being found as a result of the information given by Thilaiyalagan and Kathavarayan.
“The informants worked for Pathmanabhan and since Sosilawati went to see him at the farm, what happened thereafter certainly could be inferred as being instructions from Pathmanabhan,” he said.
“There was also no explanation given by the accused persons as to the finding of the blood and human bones on the farm.”
He said Kathavarayan, who had turned against his three co–accused and implicated them, had carefully crafted his version to portray his innocence and manipulated his evidence to suit him.
Akhtar said Kathavarayan’s testimony claiming he saw Sosilawati a week after the incident was also made up.
“Kathavarayan had also said Pathmanabhan had prepared them (he, Thilaiyalagan and Matan) on the eventuality of being arrested and questioned by Sosilawati and company."
"This shows the misfortune that had befallen Sosilawati and company on Aug 30, 2010, at the farm,” he said.
“The fact that there was a meeting to discuss their disappearance indicated that all four accused were involved in an earlier plan which they had carried out on Aug 30, 2010, by killing and disposing of the remains of Sosilawati and company (bodies were burnt and ashes thrown in the river).”
The judge said this was a case unlike others as no bodies recovered.
He, however, found no reason why the four accused could not be convicted merely because no bodies were recovered as he found the four men to have murdered Sosilawati and company.
“All the evidence in this case recouped together puts to shade the saying that dead men tell no tales. In this case, the dead men and one woman shouted at the top of their lungs through silent evidence, a tale of dishonesty and deception, precipitated by sheer and naked greed, orchestrated by a man whose profession preached trustworthiness and honour.
“Their victims are not only the poor and desolate but also the high and mighty. This case is evidence of such gruesome plot executed by a rogue professional and his cohorts with extreme brutality,” said Akhtar.