Welikade Prison Chaplain of the 1960s who served a Prison Term from 1984 to 1997

 Welikade Prison Chaplain of the 1960s who served a Prison Term from 1984 to 1997

 

Background

In the 1960s, Fr. Mathew Peiris, the Vicar of St. Paul's Church, Kynsey Rd. Borella was the Christian Chaplain at the Welikade Prison . He also covered the Colombo Remand Prison and the New Magazine Prison, where the Coup Suspects (many were christians) were held until their release.  He was a popular and much respected priest, believed also to be highly influential, as the then Governor General attended his church. He was also an exorcist, reputed to be capable of driving away supernatural spirits, spiritually and his services were sought by many people. Being an Anglican Priest, he was married, had children, all of whom lived in the Vicarage.

Fr. Peiris was a key figure in the controversial conversion to Christianity and baptism as Peter, of Talduwe Somarama ,the assassin of Prime Minister, Bandaranaike, a few days before the execution. Death row prisoners were normally allowed to see a priest of their own religious denomination, and Fr.Peiris, as the Christian Prison Chaplain had been given access at prisoner Somarama's request. It was speculated that the Governor General, fearing a backlash if a bhikkhu was executed, had prevailed upon Fr. Peiris, whom he knew well, to convert Somarama to Christianity, and that Fr. Peiris did so by promising to obtain a pardon for him. This was only speculation at the time and may or may not have been true. Fr. Peiris was not known to engage in such tactics at the time and enjoyed a very good reputation.

My interactions with him were few and cordial and to me he appeared no different from the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests I had known in my own school.  He never interfered in matters pertaining to prison administration. A Welfare Officer handled Christian religious matters within the prison.

Justice A. C. Alles in his Famous Criminal Trials Series writes about the case under the title : "Mathew Peiris : from Mysticism to Murder ".
Professor Ravindra Fernando, Professor of Forensic Medicine has written a book titled " Murder at the Vicarage " and in his book he has made an exhaustive analysis of the medical evidence.  This is the first time an anti- diabetic drug has been used to commit murder.

Summary of the Case in the Sunday Times

A very good summary of the case has been made by Feroze Sameer and the Sunday Times article is reproduced below:

“Review by Feroze Sameer

'Murder at the Vicarage', Book by Prof. Ravindra Fernando'
The launch of Prof. Ravindra Fernando’s book ‘Murders at the Vicarage – The Mathew Peiris case’ was held on August 5 at the OPA auditorium in Colombo with film director Chandran Rutnam, former Attorney General Tilak Marapana and publisher Vijitha Yapa gracing the occasion.

Rutnam, in his interesting address, announced the movie titled ‘According to Mathew’, starring Alston Koch and Jaqueline Fernandez, and was planned for simultaneous release in Colombo and Hollywood in October this year. He revealed the movie was based on the material found in court records and Justice AC Alles’ book published in 1992.

Prof. Fernando deserves to be commended in having taken great pains to recount a crime of a unique nature, where the anti-diabetic drug Euglucon was used to kill two non-diabetic people. Justice A.C. Alles’s book on the murder, comprising 14-chapters in 217-pages, recounts the terrible tragedy of the murders of Russel Ingram and Eunice Peiris at the Vicarage of St Paul’s Church in Kynsey Road, Colombo, in addition to relating the Van Bulow Case which relates to murder by insulin. Prof. Fernando goes one great step further in his 545-page book, devoting 134-pages to the trial and skillfully summarising the judgment of the Trail-at-Bar of 612-pages in 241-pages.

Trial at Bar

Marapana, who was at that time the Deputy Solicitor General, recounted extensively on his uphill task in bringing the murderers to book. He was assisted by Senior State Counsel C.R. de Silva and State Counsel Gamini Ameratunga in the Trial-at-Bar, comprising Justices Tissa Bandaranayake (President), P. Ramanathan and D.C.W. Wickramasekera.

Judgment of the Trial at Bar

The judgment, read by Justice Tissa Bandaranayake on February 15, 1984 reportedly took 9½-hours ending at 6.30-pm. It gave an in-depth account and incisive analysis of every conceivable aspect, medical and otherwise, which required to have been probed and examined. By such profound professional approach, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt how Russel Ingram, 32, and Ms. Eunice Peiris, 59, came by their tragic deaths during a space of seven months on August 10, 1978 and 19 March, 1979, respectively. They died on account of having been ingested on more than one occasion with strong doses of the anti-diabetic drug glibenclamide (Euglucon). The drug caused blood sugar levels to drop to an astounding zero, leading to stupor or unconscious condition resulting in irreversible brain damage, and, in this hypoglycaemic state of over a few weeks, eventual death.

Rev. Peiris, who was also an exorcist, fed the victims anti-diabetic tablets when they resided at the Vicarage. From the evidence of the nurses, his subsequent daily visits to the General Hospital, feeding the unconscious patient liquids containing anti-diabetic drugs via the nasal feed, causing the patient to suffer hypoglycaemic attacks, was decidedly diabolical. Such condition subsided with the infusion of dextrose by the hospital staff.

On June 9, 1978, Russel lying ill in bed drowsily tells his dad, Alex Ingram, “Daddy, I can sleep, sleep and sleep,” leading to his death on August 10. One is inevitably reminded of a scene in The Godfather movie, Don Corleone, seeing his bullet-riddled son Sonny’s body at the undertakers, pathetically stating: “Look how they massacred my boy.” Alex would have harboured such harrowing sentiments when he broke down weeping while giving evidence, which the court believed in its entirety. So was Dalrene’s sister, Brigette Jackson’s evidence for the prosecution, inter alia, which led to the nailing of the culprits.

Postmortem
The pathological and judicial postmortem examinations conducted on Russel and Eunice by Prof. A.H. Sheriffdeen and Colombo’s JMO Dr. Subramanian, apart from an extensive series of tests which eliminated hyperplasia, adenomatosis and nesidioblastosis, showed no trace of insulinoma, or an islet or beta cell tumour of the pancreas or its ectopic tissue, which secretes insulin, and hence cleared the patients of any disease.

Medical experts
The phalanx of medical specialist whose expertise was sought at various times included Prof. Navaratne, Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, Dr. Nagaratnam, Dr. (Ms.) Balasubramaniam, Dr. Sathanathan, Dr. PAP Joseph, Dr. (Ms.) Kanthi Pinto, Dr. (Ms.) Ruwanpathirana, Dr. (Ms.) Anula Wijesundera, Dr. Wijesiriwardena, Dr. Kura Banagala, Dr. Mohan de Silva, Dr. Lakshman Weerasena, Dr. EV Peiris, Dr. JGC Peiris, Dr. Terrence de Silva, Dr. Karunakaran, Dr. H.R. Wickramasingha, Dr. (Ms.) Panditharatne, and Dr. S.C. Abeysuriya, a defence witness, whose opinion was considered by the court as irrelevant.

Motive
Motive for these murders was established by the prosecution as the amatory nexus which existed between Rev. Pieris and Dalrene, both with families of three children each, allegedly working jointly to eliminate their respective spouses.

The basic premise which featured in this sordid episode is the deep trust people had naturally reposed in the priest in robes. Also their gullibility in accepting his claims of interacting with angels, as well as experiencing alleged stigmata on his palms. The complaisant and passive demeanour of Russel’s wife Dalrene, who went along with the priest without a hint of caution or protest, while her husband was being protractedly murdered in stages, sadly contributed towards such misguided trust.

Counsel

Rev. Peiris was defended by President’s Counsel R.I. Obeysekere assisted by his brother Anil Obeysekere, D.M.S. Gunasekera, K.Y. Perera, Jayantha Weerasinghe, Upali Senaratne and Manel Gunatileke.

Dalrene was defended by Attorney-at-Law Cecil Goonewardene, assisted by attorneys Pani Illangakoon, Ananda Malalgoda, Champani Padmasekere and Vijitha de Alwis.

Verdict
The question basic to the entire case was articulated on corpus delicti, which had been established, referred to the principle that a crime must have been proven to have occurred and the death of the victim a result of the crime, before a person can be convicted of committing that crime. Also, mens rea, the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, was established to the satisfaction of the court. Both accused were sentenced to death by the High Court bench of the three judges on 15 February, 1984. The death sentences were commuted to life sentences on June 28, 1985.

Fr. Peiris and Dalrene Ingram Arriving in Court

Court of Appeal

However, in a surprising turn of events, Dalrene was acquitted of all charges by the three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal comprising Justices Justin Abeywardene (President), N.R.M. Dheeraratne and A.S. Wijetunga. The bench delivered its 101-page judgment on February 12, 1988. It naturally prompted Justice A.C. Alles to comment thus in his book: “It is therefore respectfully submitted, with all due deference to the Judges of the Court of Appeal, that they had misdirected themselves in coming to the conclusion that Dalrene did not share a common intention with Mathew Peiris to kill her husband. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that judicial sympathy appears to have outweighed the judgment of the Judges in acquitting Dalrene in respect of the charge relating to Russel’s death.”

Lovers
Alles’ premise evidently springs from a comment he made pertaining to the culpability of Wimala Wijewardene and her amorous connection with the first accused Ven. Buddharakkitha Thera in the S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike assassination, thus: “When two young lovers sleep on the same bed they do not have the time or the inclinations to speak of anything else except themselves in the happiness of their intimacy, but when a man sleeps with his mistress it is not the words of love that pass between them but rather the more mundane affairs of everyday life and the secrets hidden in each other’s hearts which are freely and openly disclosed.”

Appeal to the Supreme Court
Rev. Mathew’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on February 03, 1992 by a bench comprising Justices Kulatunga (President), Wadugodapitiya and Priyantha Perera.

After serving some 15-years, his release under a general amnesty from prison in November, 1997, Rev. Peiris died in his home in Moratuwa on May 12, 1998. He was 80-years old.

Books cited during the course of the trial included: Body, Mind and Sugar by E.M. Abrahamson and A.W. Pezet; Text Book on Hypogycaemia by Marks & Rose 2nd Ed. 1981; Hypogycaemia by Turner, Rubenstein & Foster appearing in the medical journal International Medicine Vol.1 Sep-1981; Clinical Pharmacology by Laurence and Bennet; Priestley’s ‘Moynihan Oration’85-cases on insulinoma; Prof. Berbosa’s Master of surgery degree thesis, and Archives of Surgery Vol. 115 May 1980 by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, apart from Rev. Peiris’s manuscripts on Damn the Bloody Exorcist and To Hell with the Devil.

In view of the strong similarities of circumstantial evidence in this case and the Chandrasekara Dias murder of August 30, 1979, one is inevitably prone to rethink whether the outcome of that sensational case would have been different had it been heard by such a splendid and sharp Trial-at-Bar court. In that case, recounted by Alles in his Vol.-9 of the Famous Criminal Cases of Sri Lanka, the two accused, the deceased’s wife Rohini Dias and his driver Nimal Fernando, who also had an amatory nexus, were unanimously acquitted by a seven member Sinhala-speaking jury on September 04, 1982.”

Judgment of the Supreme Court

016-SLLR-SLLR-1992-2-REV.-MATHEW-PEIRIS-v.-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL.pdf

(1992) 2 sri LR

SUPREME COURT KULATUNGA, J. WADUGODAPITIYA, J. AND PERERA, J. S.C. APPEAL 21/88 WITH 11/88 C.A. NO. 126/87 HIGH COURT AT BAR COLOMBO NO. 766/80 17, 19, JUNE, 23, 24, 29, 30 AND 31 JULY AND 20, 21 AND 22 AUGUST 1991.

Extract from the Supreme Court Judgment outlining the case

3rd February 1992. KULATUNGA, J.

The accused-appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) has appealed to this Court from the judgment of the Court of Appeal whereby that Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the High Court at Bar by three Judges without a Jury for committing the murder of two persons. One indictment was presented in respect of these offences on the basis that they had been committed in the course of the same transaction.

 The appellant was the 1st accused at the trial and he was indicted with the murders of Russel Ingram and Mrs. Eunice Peiris and was tried along with Dalrene Ingram the 2nd accused who was the wife of the deceased Russel Ingram.

The deceased Eunice Peiris was the wife of the appellant.

The two accused were also charged on separate counts in the indictment with the offence of conspiracy to commit the said murders. They were charged with the murder of Russel Ingram on the basis of an alleged common intention on their part to commit such offence. The 2nd accused was additionally charged with the offence of abetting the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased Eunice Peiris.

The trial Judges convicted the two accused on all the offences charged against them. Both accused appealed against their conviction. The Court of Appeal held:

that whilst the evidence established a very close amatory relationship between the accused, it provided sufficient proof of a motive to commit the offence only against the appellant;

that in the absence of a special overt act by the 2nd accused, the circumstantial evidence was equivocal on the existence of a common intention on her part,

that the evidence is consistent with the 2nd accused having been an innocent tool in the hands of the appellant; and

that the evidence of the 2nd accused’s conduct relied upon by the prosecution to establish that the 2nd accused agreed with the appellant and facilitated the commission of the offence is consistent with her innocence.

In the result, the charge of murder against the 2nd accused based on common intention and the charges of conspiracy and abetment against her failed. Her, conviction on those charges was set aside and she was acquitted on all counts, allowing her appeal.

The conviction of the appellant for conspiracy to commit murder was set aside and he was acquitted allowing his appeal in respect of that charge. His conviction and sentence for the murder of Russel Ingram and Mrs. Eunice Peiris were affirmed and his appeal was dismissed in that regard.

The appellant Rev. Mathew Peiris ordained in England in 1950s is a Priest of the Church of Sri Lanka, belonging to the Anglican Christian Fellowship. At the relevant time he was the Vicar of Saint Paul’s Church Colombo. His wife Mrs. Eunice Peiris who was about 59 years old at the time of her death lived with him in the Vicarage. They had three grown-up children; two of them, a daughter and one son (Mihiri and Munilal) both married and were resident in England with their spouses; the unmarried daughter Malrani was also resident in England. All of them were employed there.

Russel Ingram and his wife Dalrene were regular visitors to the Vicarage from 1976. The appellant was known as an exorcist and conducted exorcism ceremonies at his Church on Thursdays which the Ingrams attended. At this time Russel has lost his job. Dalrene who was a typist was also unemployed. They had three small children. The appellant employed Dalrene as his Secretary and later found employment for Russel at Lake House.

The appellant and his wife went on a world tour on 06.02.78 leaving Russel and his wife in charge of the Vicarage. On 25.04.78 the appellant returned alone.

On 09.06.78 Russel who had been in excellent health suddenly took ill. The appellant gave him some pills saying that they had been prescribed by Dr. Weerasena. Russel became drowsy and suffered bouts of unconsciousness and was admitted to hospital only on 26.06.78 in an unconscious state; he recovered with the administration of dextrose and was discharged on 14.07.78. He was again admitted to the hospital in an unconscious state on 18.07.78 and died without recovering on 10.08.78.

Mrs. Eunice Peiris returned from abroad on 06.12.78. She thereafter became slow in speech, drowsy and lethargic. The appellant showed her to Dr. Weerasena who prescribed a mild antidepressant. On 15.01.79 she collapsed and was admitted to Durdans Hospital. She was treated for mild depression and was discharged having made an almost complete recovery. The appellant kept on giving her pills saying that they were prescribed by Dr. Weerasena. She was once again admitted to hospital on 31.01.79 in an unconscious state and remained in that state until her death on 19.03.79.

In the case of both the deceased persons the High Court Judges held it proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had suffered permanent brain damage at the time of their last hospitalisation and that each of them died of pneumonia caused by prolonged unconsciousness resulting from hypoglycaemia (lowering of blood sugar) induced by an anti-diabetic drug.

The Supreme Court Judgment  then proceeded to deal with the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant, Rev. Peiris exhaustively and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

 Prison Term

Rev. Peiris was sentenced to death in 1984. It was commuted to a term of life imprisonment in 1985 and further commuted to a term of 20 years a few years later. His appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in 1992. He earned the usual prison remissions and was discharged in 1997. An interview he had given after his release can be read here :
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/971109/plusm.html

 

An Observation

There is a reference above in Firoze Sameer's Sunday Times article to an earlier case as follows:

"In view of the strong similarities of circumstantial evidence in this case and the Chandrasekara Dias murder of August 30, 1979, one is inevitably prone to rethink whether the outcome of that sensational case would have been different had it been heard by such a splendid and sharp Trial-at-Bar court. In that case, recounted by Alles in his Vol.-9 of the Famous Criminal Cases of Sri Lanka, the two accused, the deceased’s wife Rohini Dias and his driver Nimal Fernando, who also had an amatory nexus, were unanimously acquitted by a seven member Sinhala-speaking jury on September 04, 1982.”

In this case, Fr. Mathew Peiris was found guilty of the murder of his wife and another by administering an anti-diabetic drug , for the first time in Sri Lanka. The other accused, the woman in the case was acquitted at the conclusion of the Court of Appeal hearing. In regard to the acquittal, Firoze Sameer quotes the following passage by Retired Justice A. C. Alles has, in his book on the case, in the Famous Trials series:
"It is therefore respectfully submitted, with all due deference to the Judges of the Court of Appeal, that they had misdirected themselves in coming to the conclusion that Dalrene did not share a common intention with Mathew Peiris to kill her husband. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that judicial sympathy appears to have outweighed the judgment of the Judges in acquitting Dalrene in respect of the charge relating to Russel’s death.”

It is necessary to recall the Kularatne case in 1967, where the jury unanimously found that the accused was guilty of the murder of his wife, but was acquitted in appeal by a three-judge bench of which Justice Alles was a member. Here too, there was a woman involved, though she played no part in the case and the deceased died of arsenic poisoning, again for the first time in Ceylon.

Similarly in the Stephen Seneviratne case in 1936, the jury found the accused guilty of the murder of his wife by 5-2 verdict but was acquitted by the Privy Council. Here too there was a servant girl involved and the deceased died due to inhalation of chloroform, again for the first time in Ceylon.

All that can be said is that only Fr. Peiris could not secure an acquittal, though his method was the most ingenious. His case was first heard by a Trial at Bar, headed by three judges, while the three cases referred to, were first heard by a jury.

===============================