Quashing of the Convictions In the Padmini Kularatne Murder in 1967

 

Quashing of the Convictions
In the Padmini Kularatne Murder in 1967

 

Background
In the 1950s, Dr. D. G. De S. Kularatne was a well-known & popular Medical Practitioner in the Fort of Galle. He lived in a palatial mansion, known as "Samudra Siri", at the far end of the Fort.  He was often a spectator at cricket and football matches in which Mahinda College was a participant. He appeared to be a very rich man and it was known that he was from a very distinguished family - he was a nephew of the great educationist P. De S Kularatne He was an active member of the Galle YMBA. He enjoyed a good reputation.

 

"Samudra Siri"

 

Padmini Kularatne 

In April 1967, a few days before the New Year, the news spread that Padmini, the wife of Dr. D. G. De S Kularatne had died of poisoning, and that even at that early stage, Dr. Kularatne was a suspect. Police investigations were ongoing. Sordid details of the happenings in the Kularatne household emerged, and this evoked much sympathy for the deceased wife and revulsion for Dr. Kularatne.

Mrs. Laura K (M) & Sopia (L)

The Police arrested Dr. Kularatne, his 70-year-old mother, Laura and two servants, Sopia and Cecilin. They were remanded and the authorities decided to accommodate Dr. Kularatne at the Magazine Prison in Colombo, his mother at the Female Section attached to Welikade Prison, and the servants at the Galle Prison.

The writer was then the Office Jailor at the Welikade Prison. The Female Section was in charge of a Female Jailor, who normally supervised visits by outsiders to see the prisoners there, but the Superintendent directed that visits to see Mrs. Kularatne should be supervised by a male Jailor, and as the Office Jailor , I was directed to supervise such visits. I did so for the next several months , maintaining a record of the visitors. Mrs. Kularatne was a stout and formidable lady. She was regularly seen by two of her daughters, who lived in Colombo. Dr. Hudson Silva, Founder of the Eye Donation Society, sometimes accompanied his wife, who was one of the daughters. Other children and  relatives, including Justice H. W. R. Weerasooriya, visited her occasionally. They never discussed the case with her at these visits.

Friction between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law was quite common in most families and reports of Mrs. Laura Kularatne's  intense dislike for her daughter-in-law were generally believed. It was however difficult to believe that she had conspired with the son to poison her daughter-in-law, the mother of four children or that she would encourage her son to have an illicit affair with the Nurse Aide employed at his dispensary. Based on the police investigations, the details reported made most people believe that Dr. Kularatne was the culprit. However, during the Magisterial inquiry, it transpired that the deceased had  told one of her daughters a few weeks earlier that she heard a conversation between her husband and her mother-in-law which indicated that they were planning to poison her.

The background to this case and brief details are described by a Journalist , Stanley Samarasinghe, under the title "Murder in Galle"  and can be accessed here, courtesy Facebook page of Praminda Jayawardena :
https://www.facebook.com/groups/277933739075780/search/?q=first%20arsenic%20poisoning%20case

In December 1967, I left the Department of Prisons but continued to take an interest in the case, by reading newspaper reports that were published from time to time.

The Trial

At the trial presided over by Chief Justice H. N. G. Fernando, the following Counsel appeared for the suspects:

G. G. Ponnambalam Q. C. with Messrs. Sunil Rodrigo and M. Shanmuganathan appeared for Dr. Kularatne;

Dr. Colvin R. de Silva with Messrs. Eardley Perera, B. C. F. Jayaratne, Kumar Amarasekera, P. D. W. de Silva, R. D. C. de Silva, Asoka Gunawardena and Shanthi Perera appeared for Laura Kularatne;

R. I. Obeysekera with  Anil Obeysekera, S. Ganesh, M. D. K. Kulatunge, Gamini Wanigasekera, M. Devasagayam, Tyronne Fernando and Raja Gunaratne appeared for the servant, Sopia.

It should be noted that the fourth suspect taken into custody, Cecilin, the other servant, was released prior to the trial as there was no incriminating evidence against her,

The trial lasted sixteen days and there were 30 witnesses for the prosecution. The defense did not call any witnesses, but the first accused made a dock statement.

The jury returned an unanimous verdict of guilty and sentence of death was passed on the three accused.

Dr. K. after Death Sentence

After conviction, the 1st accused would have been held in a cell in Death Row at Welikade Prison, and the 2nd and 3rd accused would have been held in in individual cells in the Female Section at Welikade Prison. Prisoners sentenced to death, as of right, are entitled to submit an appeal to the higher court.

More details of the trial in the Supreme Court can be found in the Famous Trials Series Volume 4 written by Justice A. C. Alles, one of the judges who heard the appeal. This is not available online.

Volume 4

Famous Criminal Cases of Sri Lanka: The Sathasivam murder case. The Kularatne poisoning case. Pauline de Croos-a verdict in dispute. Tragedy at Tismada

 

What follows is based entirely on the Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment.

Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA)

All three convicted prisoners appealed against their convictions and at the hearing of the appeal, presided over by Justice Sirimanne, Justice Alles and Justice Samarawickrema , a battery of powerful lawyers appeared on behalf of the accused appellants and the Crown as follows:
G. E. Chitty, Q.C., with Eardley Perera, O. Candappa, A. M. Coomaraswamy, M . Underwood, Anil Obeysekera, G. E . Chitty (Jnr.) and S. L. Gunasekera, for the 1st Accused-Appellant.
E. R. S . R. Coomaraswamy, with Kumar Amarasekera, Gamini Wanigasekera, C. Chabradaran, T. Joganathan, Asoka de Z. Gunawardena, Kosala Wijetilleke, M. 8. Aziz and Shanthi Perera, for the 2nd Accused-Appellant.
Colvin R. de Silva, with B. C. F. Jayaratne, R: I. Obeysekera, Bala Nadarajah, P. D. W. de Silva, I. S. de Silva and P . Tennekoon, for the 3rd Accused-Appellant.
Clarence M . Fernando (assigned), for all Accused-Appellants.
V. S. A. Pullenayegam, Senior Crown Counsel, with A. C. de Zoysa, Senior Crown Counsel, Kenneth. Seneviratne, Crown Counsel, and T. D. Bandaranayake, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

The Judgment of the CCA was issued on November 10,1968. The facts of the case are outlined as follows:

"Padmini Kularatna died on the evening of 9th April, 1967.
There can be no doubt that her death was due to arsenic poisoning.
The Crown alleged that her husband, the 1st accused, his mother, the 2nd accused, and a woman servant who did the cooking, the 3rd accused, were responsible for her death.
On the first count in the indictment, in its amended form, all three were charged with having conspired to murder the deceased between 10th March 1967 and 9th April 1967.
On the second count, the 3rd accused alone was charged with murder, and,
on the third count the 1st accused was charged with abetting the 3rd accused to commit murder.
It was conceded at the argument that the date 10th March 1967 had been inserted in the indictment on inadmissible evidence, but nothing turns on this point.
The appellants were convicted on all three counts by the unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to death. "

 

It may be noted that this was the first time arsenic was used to poison and murder a person in Ceylon.

The main grounds of appeal were
i.   it was unreasonable for the jury to have acted on the evidence of the deceased’s daughter Achini,
ii.  even if that evidence was accepted, a reasonable inference could not be drawn that the poison was contained in the food served by the 3rd accused
iii. the possibility of the presence of the poison in the food served by the other cook had not been excluded.

After hearing arguments and an exhaustive analysis, the CCA held as follows and a summary is given below:

i) If either of two persons could have committed an act, the burden is on the prosecution to exclude one person effectively and in this case, the failure of the prosecution to call the other cook as a witness is a serious deficiency
(ii) if a witness has made a previous statement which is inconsistent with the evidence at the trial, the jury should be told that the evidence given at the trial should be regarded as unreliable, and the previous statement cannot be relied on as evidence
 (iii)  in a case of circumstantial evidence, if the jury has to  choose one hypothesis in preference to another, they would normally follow the one recommended by the trial Judge, even if he tells them to ignore it . The strong suggestion in the summing-up to test Achini’s vital evidence on the basis that one only of three possible theories was an established fact was a misdirection.
(iv) that the evidence of Professor of Forensic Medicine and an Assistant )Government Analyst that there was Potassium Arsenite in the stomach of the deceased was not conclusive and the trial Judge should have directed the jury to disregard their opinions
(v) that the Analyst produced the plate on which he found a trace of arsenic, but neither the Police Constable who had brought the plate to him nor Achini who had given it to a Police Inspector was called to identify the plate as the one in which the deceased took her last meal.
(vi) that the statement made by the 1st accused to an Assistant Superintendent of Police in the course of the inquiry under Chapter 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code was governed by the provisions of section 122 (3).
(vii) that a statement made in the course of an inquiry under section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code can only be used for the limited purpose permitted by that section, viz., to contradict the person making it if he subsequently says something different. It cannot be used to form the basis for an inference that the conduct of the person who made it was suspicious.
viii ) that the procedure followed to amend the charge sheet was not in accordance with the law, but in the present case it did not cause prejudice to the appellants.
(ix) that the dock statement made by the 1st accused was not given due consideration . Jury should have been told that if they believe it, it must be acted upon, if it raises a reasonable doubt, it must succeed, it cannot be used against another accused.
(x) ) that withdrawal of the issue of suicide from the jury was a  misdirection
(xi) that, misdirection must have prejudiced the appellants, and the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and, in any event, could not be supported having regard to the evidence.

The convictions were quashed and all three accused were acquitted.

CCA judgment can be accessed here:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/109-NLR-NLR-V-71-THE-QUEEN-v.-D.-G.-DE-S.-KULARATNE-and-2-others.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjL8puRlLyOAxWKd2wGHSnODYAQFnoECAUQAg&usg=AOvVaw07so8WuBBe3PfMi0yIqPsw

Dr. K.on his release from Welikade Prison

Courtesy National Archives/Times of Ceylon

Observations

1) This case illustrates that:

a. powerful lawyers are clever at splitting hairs in arguing appeals and are able to convince appeal court judges that:
i. even unanimous verdicts of the jury are unreasonable and are not supported by the evidence;
ii. even highly experienced trial court judges have misdirected the jury in the summing up and these misdirections are prejudicial to the appellants;

b. even unbiased decisions made by laymen on a jury, guided by their common sense, directions of the judge on the law and demeanour of witnesses are found wanting. 

In this case, the jury no doubt considered the following matters, among others, in arriving at an unanimous verdict that the accused persons were guilty:

i) deceased was harassed by the mother-in-law.

ii) the husband was having an illicit affair with a minor employee; and also harassed the deceased;

iii) the deceased was virtually a prisoner in her own house;

iv) the husband desired a divorce;

v) the deceased refused the offer for reasons of her own, which to the jury would have indicated that she had no intention of suicide;

vi) the claim that the deceased was of unstable mind, was an  invention of the husband as a ground for divorce;

vii) the words spoken by the deceased towards the end showed that she was of sound mind;

viii) even if she wanted to commit suicide by taking poison, in the situation in which she was placed, there was no way in which she could procure poison;

ix) even if she was able to procure arsenic, which had never been used before to cause death, the question arises whether she could have had the knowledge on how to use it;

x) the doctor had potassium arsenite in his dispensary under lock and key; on this point see iv above of the CCA judgment which finds that the evidence of the Professor of Forensic Medicine and the Asst. Govt. Analyst was not conclusive that there was potassium arsenite in the stomach of the deceased; apparently the jury was satisfied with the evidence of the Professor of Forensic Medicine; (the CCA also had no doubt that death was due to arsenic poisoning, based on their evidence and the jury would not have overlooked the fact that this is the first time that  arsenic was used to commit a murder in Ceylon and only a doctor or chemist would have known about its toxicity  and could have procured it and for the same reason conclusive or expert evidence would not have been available),

xi) the evidence of the deceased's daughter, a young girl, in spite of the infirmities, would have been convincing to the jury.

xii) therefore the jury could not have entertained a reasonable doubt about the persons responsible for the deceased's death.

(2) In a similar high profile case which occurred in Ceylon in 1933, where the husband was charged with the murder of his wife using chloroform and was found guilty by a 5-2 verdict of the jury and sentenced to death, later commuted to one of life imprisonment, after hearing arguments the Privy Council decided to quash the conviction and acquit the accused. The Attorney General of England made an important submission, appearing on behalf of the Crown in this case. It is given below together with the response of the Court, as the CCA in this case also appears to have been guided by the principle outlined there, but whether the same can be said of the Kularatne case, is debatable, in the least.

“On these facts the advice proper to be tendered to His Majesty seems to their Lordships to be no doubtful matter.

The submission of the Attorney-General was well founded that it is not for this Board to interfere because its conclusion as to guilt or innocence might differ from that of the jury.

But in the view of their Lordships, there are here no grounds on the evidence taken as a whole, upon which any tribunal could properly as a matter of legitimate inference, arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was guilty and any conclusion on the available materials would be, and is, mere conjecture or guess, which are not, in law or justice, permissible grounds on which to base a verdict.

The only proper direction to the jury in these circumstances was that they must return a verdict of not guilty or that they could not safely or properly find any other verdict. The direction was, as has been' seen, quite other than this, and the verdict, in the opinion of their Lordships, cannot stand.”

The judgment of the Privy Council can be read here :

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjyhu3il8iOAxVISmwGHXCeFcQQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flankalaw.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F12%2F040-NLR-NLR-V-38-THE-KING-v.-SENEVIRATNE.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2lZu0GfFQ89IVPOU_zecXc&opi=89978449

It is doubtful whether in this case (Kularatne) it can be said that the finding of the jury was based on "mere conjecture or guess."

(3) In the article by Journalist, Stanley Samarasinghe, quoted earlier,  the following paragraph appears :

“According to Padmini’s daughter Achini’s evidence in the Magistrate Court, her mother had told her a few weeks before her death that she over heard a conversation between Laura and Dr. Daymon of a plan to poison her.

At the trial, then Chief Justice H.N.G. Fernando, who heard the case, did not permit the prosecution to place this evidence before the jury calling it inadmissible.”

If this is true, it is clear who was responsible for the crime. The trial judge had not allowed the prosecution to lead this evidence  , but in his summing up, with this at the back of his mind, had rightly advised to exclude the theory of suicide. But the CCA found this to be a misdirection.

3) This case also illustrates that the law provides adequate safeguards for accused persons, and if the deceased did not commit suicide in this case,(it is more than likely that she did not), justice has been denied to her.

Conclusion

i) The fate of the woman, Ariyawathie,  who was employed as a Nurse Aide in the Doctor's dispensary is not known. She does not seem to have been a suspect and when the Doctor was taken into custody and remanded, there would not have been a need for her services. A notable omission in the judgment is the absence of any reference to her, the woman whose presence was the cause of this tragedy. However, this may not have been relevant, because the judgment of the  Court of Appeal only had to deal with the grounds of appeal. The publicity generated would have ruined her reputation, and ultimately she appears to have passed into obscurity.

ii) After his acquittal, Dr. Kularatne married again, one Susila de Silva of Dodanduwa, a teacher then at Anula Vidyalaya, Nugegoda and he had another, child, a daughter, who is now in the USA and holds a doctorate in Public Health. Read about her here :  https://www.facebook.com/KaravasriLanka/posts/a-karava-bride-in-north-americaඋතුරු-ඇමරිකාවේ-කරාව-මනාලියක්the-marriage-of-piyum/844891923512851/ See also the Kularatne genealogy link below.   

Dr. Kularatne's death is recorded in the "The Buddhist, Volume 41, Issues 4-6, 1970, a publication of the Colombo YMBA., but the date is not stated. He appears  to have died some months after his second marriage and within two years of his acquittal and release from prison.

Mrs. Laura Kularatne died in the early 1970s.

Sopia, the servant/cook has also faded away.

iii) The genealogy of the Ambalangoda Kularatne family and the Dodanduwa  Weerasooriya family (Laura Kularatne's mother  was a Weerasooriya ) can be accessed at the Links below:

De Silva Kularatne family of Ambalangoda
http://www.worldgenweb.org/lkawgw/gen3094.html
Weerasooriya family of Dodanduwa
http://www.worldgenweb.org/lkawgw/gen3095.html
Jayawardena family of Ambalangoda
http://www.worldgenweb.org/lkawgw/gen3163.html
Details of the Heron and Laura de S Kularatne family can be accessed at the links below:
Heron & Laura de S Kularatne family
https://www.facebook.com/KaravasriLanka/posts/heron-laura-de-silva-kularatnes-familiyහෙරන්-සහ-ලෝරා-ඩි-සිල්වා-කුලරත්න-යුවල-ගේ-ප/426007655401282/
Weddings of H. De S Kularatne children
https://www.facebook.com/KaravasriLanka/posts/pfbid023kw51aY87QfuA6dMdZnoZbcvSiCk1By6YuvTxDNZnYQ1DLJPHgczFtULFAh1io3yl

………………………………..

See below the article titled “Murder in Galle” by Journalist, Stanley Samarasinghe, 

Courtesy Facebook Page of Praminda Jayawardena.

 

 MURDER IN GALLE

First arsenic poisoning case in Sri Lanka

By Stanley Samarasinghe

In the historic city of Galle, within the enclosure of the Dutch Fortress, is the well-known house ‘Samudrasiri.’ It is a two-storeyed house facing the sea.

During the late 60s, this house attracted a great deal of public attention.

It is where the first poison murder case in the country took place.

In this country, the use of arsenic by a husband to kill his wife, the mother of his four children was never heard before 1967.

Samudrasiri was the ancestral home of a well-known Buddhist family in Southern Sri Lanka. Members of the Kularathne family were residing in this house, until it came to be more famous for the crime that took place within those four walls.

The speculation is that the offender’s intention was to get rid of Padmini Susila Kularathne, by poisoning her with arsenic. However, in this end, it destroyed an entire family.

In the year 1967, the inmates of this house were Laura Kularathne, her son Dr. Daymon Gamini Kularathne, his wife Padmini, their children Narendra, Sulari, Achini and Himashi. There were also two female servants Sopia and Cecilin, and one male servant by the name of Banda.

In 1956, H. de S. Kularathne, the chief occupant of Samudrasiri died. He was a lawyer with a lucrative practice, who sometimes functioned as crown proctor. He was a prominent citizen of Galle, social worker and member of Galle Gymkhana Club.

Nine years before his demise, he was able to get his son Daymon to marry Padmini Susila, the younger daughter of Mr. and Mrs. C.E. Perera of Kalutara.

Padmini received her education at Holy Family Convent and Ladies’ College Colombo. Upon her marriage, she was given a dowry of Rs. 25,000 in cash, two houses at Kalutara, 50 acres of rubber lands at Eheliyagoda and several lands at Embilipitiya in the Ratnapura District.

Padmini’s elder sister Lalani Suriyawansa was married to Dr. D.M.G. Suriyawansa, who was practising in Galle. In the year 1948, just after their eldest son’s birth Daymon left for the UK to follow a post-graduate course on gynaecology and paediatrics.

Until her husband’s arrival from the UK, Padmini resided with her parents at Kalutara with her son. He came back as a well-qualified doctor and commenced a successful, lucrative practice. He had a good income, they owned two cars, children were being educated at two leading schools in Galle and he was even maintaining a horse, which enabled him to go on daily ride. After the demise of his father, he became the President of Galle Gymkahana Club and took a very keen interest on religious and social activities.

Everything seemed bright and prosperous for the family, where they were seen living a happy life with their children, if not for the unfortunate occurrences, which took place due to human nature.

Laura Kularathne, who was 70-years-old at the time the murder took place, began to develop an enmity towards her daughter-in-law. She was dictating every thing that was happening in the house. She was under the impression that the entire dowry her daughter-in-law received from her parents should be transferred to her son. She ruled the Kualaratne household the way that pleased her. Padmini was treated as a disobedient daughter-in-law.

Padmini was then 42 years old with four children. She refused to transfer her properties to her husband.

Laura, being a domineering woman, was jealous of her daughter-in-law. More than that, she did not tolerate Padmini. She felt that her daughter-in-law outshone her because of the vast expanse of properties owned by her. All the money that Padmini received from her parents as dowry was utilised for Dr. Daymon’s medical studies in England.

The other factor that contributed to create disharmony between Padmini and her husband was the young nurse attendant employed at the dispensary called Ariyawathie. According to Dr. Daymon’s driver Ranminige Romiel, Ariyawathie used to spend most her time inside the doctor’s consultation room and all doors were closed.

When Romiel advised Ariyawathie not to behave in that manner, Dr. Daymon discontinued the driver’s service. When this was conveyed to Laura, she insisted that Romiel should not inform this to Padmini. There was no reward given to Romiel for the information, other than the termination of his service.

With all these happenings, the atmosphere at the Kularathne household changed gradually. One day Padmini all of a sudden entered the consultation room when Ariyawathie was inside. She managed to leave the room through the door leading to the dispensary and the husband and wife exchanged very strong words. During those quarrels, the mother appeared to have taken the son’s side.

In 1962, Dr. Daymon fell off his horse. His leg was very badly fractured. He was in hospital for nearly two months. During this period Laura and Padmini were not in good terms, they were not even speaking to each other. They even visited hospital to see Dr. Daymon separately.

According to driver Romiel, first he dropped Laura to hospital and brought her back in the car, and thereafter he used to take Padmini to hospital to see her husband. At the hospital, Padmini slapped one of Laura’s relative Chandra de Silva because she was in the hospital room alone with Dr. Daymon.

While Dr. Daymon was in hospital in this manner, his brother Percy asked for a loan from Padmini

She agreed to give a loan to him. When Laura came to know about it, she was against it and questioned Padmini, accusing her of being headstrong. Padmini in return said that Laura was a daughter of an ex-priest.

It was after this that Laura made arrangements to confine Padmini to one of the up-stair rooms in the house.

It was this incident marked the beginning of the downfall of the Kularathne household. After that incident, Laura informed Padmini’s sister Lalani Suriyawansa in strong words, “I made this marriage and I will break it.”

It was similar to a warning because with that statement Padmini’s life at Samudrasiri changed drastically. She virtually became a prisoner at her husband’s house.

Her room was dark and dingy, and ill-ventilated with crowded furniture. Her movements were restricted and she had no access to the main parts of the house. She was not allowed the use of the telephone or the use of the car. Whenever she wanted to get about, she had to leave by the rear door and either travel in taxi cabs or had to depend on the charity of her friends, who owned cars. She was not permitted to have visitors and whenever she left the house, had to return before dark, lest she be locked out.

Even before she was put to the rear quarters by her mother-in-law, she was not served with food given to others in the household. Other numbers were given better meals, where Padmini was provided with meagre meals.

Laura gave instruction to her servants to send Padmini’s meal in a basket to upstairs. Padmini had to lower the basket connected to a rope from upstairs. Then, Padmini’s daughters, either Sulari or Achini, would take plate from the basket and food was dished on the plate and sent upstairs.

One day, when an aunt, Mrs. Kirithsinghe visited the Samudrasiri at a meal time, Padmini was able to draw Mrs. Kirithisinghe’s attention to the way the family treated her.

On that day Dr. Daymon’s brother Percy was served at one end of the table with muthusamba rice, prawn curry, chicken curry and dhal. Padmini had to be satisfied with milchard rice and dried fish curry only.

She was treated in this manner from 1962–1967 for five years. Some of her friends, who came to know about her sufferings at Samudrasiri sometimes provided mid-day meals for her.

Vilcassim, one of her neighbours, was kind and sympathetic towards her, and allowed her to use his telephone. He also provided her with a single burner kerosene cooker without informing Laura and her son Dr. Daymon. On the insistence of Laura, servants Sopia and Cecilia insulted and humiliated Padmini.

The daughters Sulari and Achini, who were very sympathetic towards their mother, had to be silent.

In 1964,  Padmini had a nervous break-down due to this discrimination. Her husband did not take any interest to treat her at the hospital. With the help of her sister Lalani, Padmini was admitted to a nursing home at Wellawatta. Before she left for Wellawatta, Padmini went to the dispensary with Lalani and worshiped her husband. At that time he made some uncharitable remarks and told her sister to take Padmini to the asylum at Angoda.

Even after her return from the nursing home, the attitude of the mother and the son had not changed. They became worse. They constantly harassed Padmini. In the year September 14, 1966, her husband filed a divorce action before the District Court of Colombo on the ground of malicious desertion. Padmini, through her lawyer Serasinghe, filed an answer but did not make any claims.

According to Padmini’s daughter Achini’s evidence in the Magistrate Court, her mother had told her a few weeks before her death that she over heard a conversation between Laura and Dr. Daymon of a plan to poison her. At the trial, then Chief Justice H.N.G. Fernando, who heard the case, did not permit the prosecution to place this evidence before the jury calling it inadmissible.

On April 9, 1967 after her mid-day meal, Padmini Susila Kularathne expired, before her sister was able to return with an ambulance, to take her to hospital.

Since then, it was known to be the most sensational and the first arsenic poison case in this county.

   ----------------