The case remains a mystery and unsolved.
IT is a murder case that remains a mystery and much talked about, even after decades passed since the suspect, a former psychology lecturer, was hauled to court.
The circumstances surrounding former beauty queen Jean Perera Sinnappa’s murder on April 6, 1979, shocked the nation and people attempted to pore over the intrigue behind the case.
A heightened furore over the case because of Jean’s status as a celebrity saw many leaning towards the possibility of a love affair gone wrong when the victim’s brother-in-law, S. Karthigesu, was arrested as the prime suspect.
It was believed to be a crime of passion as Karthigesu was said to have been in love with his sister-in-law and wanted to marry her, while she was allegedly having an affair with a Sri Lankan doctor.
The trial that followed after Karthigesu was charged with the murder was even more sensational.
With around 60 witnesses testifying against him, Karthigesu was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to death. But after spending two months behind bars while appealing against the noose, Karthigesu was acquitted – a key witness confessed that he had lied on the stand.
Free: Karthigesu shaking hands with the prison guards moments before his release from Pudu Jail in May 1981. — Photos: Filepics/The Star
After his acquittal, Karthigesu returned to lecturing and later got married and started his own family.
Last Sunday, the former lecturer passed away at his home at the age of 81, leaving behind a wife, two daughters and a son.
The murder that he was acquitted of, however, continues to live on as a cold case.
ALSO READ: Hoping for the truth: unsolved murder mysteries in Malaysia
“Indeed, it was a much talked about case. Especially as the accused Karthigesu was a teacher, belonging to a respectable profession.
“But what made the case more of a public interest was the victim herself, Jean Sinnappa, a former beauty queen,” says former Court of Appeal judge, Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus.
He says the legal fraternity viewed the case with great interest as well.
“There were no direct witnesses who saw the commission of the crime.”
Jean was a 31-year-old mother of three who became a widow after the death of her husband Sinnappa Sivapakiam who was killed in a road accident in Petaling Jaya. Jean later moved in to live with Karthigesu and her mother-in-law in Klang.
On the day of the murder, Karthigesu and Jean were driving home before motorists found him lying disoriented next to his car near the former Subang Airport interchange.
They also found Jean’s body, in the front passenger seat, with multiple stab wounds in her chest. Karthigesu claimed he was knocked on the head while relieving himself by the roadside, but it was reported that no injuries were found on his body.
Police then arrested him based on circumstantial evidence; arguably claimed by some to be the first arrest of its kind in the country.
However, Mohd Hishamudin begs to differ: “I don’t think it is the first murder case involving circumstantial evidence.
“Cases where a murder was alleged to have been committed and there were no witnesses available who could testify that he saw the accused commit the murder, thus requiring the prosecution to resort to circumstantial evidence, were quite common in trials even before Karthigesu’s case.”
Mohd Hishamudin says back then, the judicial system still practised trial by jury.
“So a jury of seven persons were empanelled. The role of the jury is to make a finding of fact as to whether the accused did commit the murder.
“The role of the judge was to guide the jury on how to evaluate the evidence presented to the court.
“Should the jury make a finding of guilt on the part of the accused, the judge would pass the sentence. For the crime of murder, it was the mandatory death penalty.”
Thus began the rigours of fact-finding during the trial which lasted 38 days.
A key prosecution witness and family friend of the accused, Bandhulananda Jayathilake, claimed that Karthigesu had ranted to him that Jean “did not deserve to live”.
It is said that it was his testimony that had led to Karthigesu being sentenced to death.
However, around two months after the sentencing, Jayathilake came forward to renounce his previous claims.
Jayathilake kissing his wife good-bye after he was arrested for perjury during Karthigesu’s trial and was sentenced to 10 years’ jail. — Photos: Filepics/The Star
Mohd Hishamudin says Jayathilake’s admission to lying under oath resulted in Karthigesu’s acquittal.
“On the strength of this about-turn by witness Jayathilake, plus the fact that the prosecution case relied merely on circumstantial evidence, the judge guided the jury to give a verdict of not guilty.
“Hence, the jury gave a verdict of not guilty and the judge acquitted Karthigesu.
“Consequent to this acquittal, the prosecution initiated perjury proceedings against witness Jayathilake who admitted to the crime of perjury. For this crime, he was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.”
Jayathilake died two years later while doing time. Jean’s murder remains unsolved until today.
