Archives

Udatalawinna mass murder : Defence further cross examines witness

by Kumar Wethasinghe

When the Udatalawinna mass murder trial resumed its hearing on Monday the eye witness Mohamed Malik was further cross examined by Defence Counsel, Anil Silva.

The Trial-at-Bar comprised High Court Judges, Eric Basnayake (President), Deepali Wijesundara and Sunil Rajapaksa.

In reply to further cross examination witness Abdul Malik said that he visited the voting centre around 8.00 a.m. on 5.12.2001. There had been people gathered near the school and mosque. During the morning he had not seen Sefan or Fizer. When the ballot papers were taken in the bus he had not seen any police vehicle behind it. However their van had immediately followed the bus.

Until they reached the clock tower there were no firing. When the van deviated to the by road and sped ahead the chasing Defender continued firing at the van. Asked why they did not get out of the van the witness said it would have been fatal to do so when the vehicle moved at speed.

He had noticed the shots hitting the back of the van. He was frightened. He had thought it to be their end.

Asked whether he thought of God at the time the witness said he did so when Fizer in the front seat was shot. The witness was standing when a bullet struck him and then he circled round and fell down. His head fell forward then he held the front iron bar and began to pray for Allah's help.

The van was full and there was no way to escape. Some stood up others remained seated. Then when the van was moving at high speed struck to a lamp post on the roadside. Then the gang in the Defender's started firing from left and right into the van.

Asked whether he mentioned that the gang fired from the right in his statement made on 12.12.2001 the witness said at the time he was feeble and sick.

He refuted the defence suggestion that this was the first instance he is describing the firing. The witness said at the identification parade that he had mentioned everything in detail when the defence suggested that the witness had a good recollection of events because the police had made it available for him to read the witness admitted that the police showed it to him at the time he signed it.

The defence further suggested that the police showed it to him prior to giving evidence in this instance and at the identification parade. The witness refuted the suggestion and said that he had a good memory of what took place that day. The witness further said that certain things he had forgotten and that it would make him insane if he kept on thinking about those incidents all the time.

Then the defence questioned whether the witness was insane at present. The witness answered he was quite sound in mind.

The witness said he could not remember whether he had mentioned in his statement to CID that Riyaz died after being shot. He had mentioned the names of his friends who travelled and received injuries on that day.

He also could not remember whether he had told that Nizani and Sathar too were shot. The statement was made on 12.12.01. The identification parade was held long afterwards. It was delayed because they were in hospital.

Although he was injured he had seen the victim in the 2nd seat. The defence suggestion that the witness never travelled in the fatal van was refuted by the witness.

The defence also suggested that the witness even if he was there could not have seen what happened to others inside the van during the alleged shooting.

The witness said that he did see how some of his friends were fired at. The witness further said that the people travelling in the van did not remain still while the chasing Defender fired at them. Some of them stood up while others moved and adjusted themselves to avoid being fired at them.When asked how the witness concluded that Rizvan was shot at, he said due to the bloodstrains appearing on Rizvan's body he assumed so. The defence counsel further inquired whether the witness was referring to Sakriya Mohamed Rizvan and the witness answered in the affirmative.

In further reply to the defence the witness said in the centre of the front seat nobody was seated during the shooting. Therefore he could see Rizvan. The witness was certain that Faizer also sat there. While the witness was holding the iron bar behind the driver's seat Faizer was shot and he began to bleed.

The witness Malik refuted suggestions that Rizvan sat in the centre of the front row of seats and that the witness was looking down that he even failed to notice the railway track. He replied that he was not looking down but was more concerned about the defenders chasing them than about the rail track.

The defence also suggested that it was a fabrication by the witness to say that he sat behind the driver to make his story convincing. When the defence suggested that Sifan, Mirusan and Nazar were occupying the 2nd row of seats behind the driver the witness said Sifan sat on his right side while Zakir was on his left.

The witness did not know whether Zakir was from the Eastern province but during the elections Zakir was mostly seen with his friends at the Madawala bazaar.

The witness also refuted the defence suggestion that it was for the first time that he was telling about shooting Rizvan and said that he had even mentioned it at the Magistrate's Court, Teldeniya.

Questioned about identification parades held the witness said he only identified the persons by their numbers. Later when he was questioned about the incidents he had mentioned their involvements and the names of his friends whom he could remember. He refuted the defence suggestion that shooting of Rizan was a fabricated story.

He reiterated that Rizvan and Sifan were shot when they attempted to get up. The defence further suggested that the witness gave evidence according to the way he was trained. The witness said no one ever instigated him to give evidence in the way he wanted.

The defence also suggested that the witness never mentioned Sifan's name in his statement because he never saw him. The witness reiterated that Sifan was there but was not certain whether he was a follower of the Muslim religion because some Muslims convert after marrying to Tamil families.

While the witness was in hospital a person had come in civvies and showed his identity to the policeman on guard before questioning him. At the time the witness had indicated that he could not walk and could not attend courts.

Later when a notice was delivered to his house he had contacted the Wattegama police. Then the Wattegama police had transported him to Teldeniya police in a jeep. That day Sifan and Pillawoos had also gone to courts along with him.

The witness said he knew he was going to the courts in connection with the Udatalawinna incidents. First day he had identified two people but later realised only one of them were involved in the incidents on 5.12.01.

Questioned whether he showed two people because of doubt the witness said sometimes one gets confuse but after concentrating properly one can identify correctly.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager