Biyagama Village owner murdered by his son

Son who murdered father ... he lost father's affection

     The true murderer of millionaire businessman Bernard Jayaratna, proprietor of Biyagama Village and the incident which created a great uproar in the past was none other than his own son, Suranga Jayaratna.

     He committed this murder on 20th February last year chopping up his father with a knife by using a motor cycle borrowed from one of his friends who lived in Malwana. Why did a son like this want to murder his own father? It is now revealed that the objective of murder was not only the desire to secure the immobile assets  of the father. Suranga has expressed that the root cause of it is an issue relating to paternal love.

    Suranga has confessed that because the care for him was neglected in his childhood, he had wanted to kill his father but that he never wanted to do so because he wanted to get possession of his father's property. However, after the murder of his father he had developed a desire of acquiring this wealth of properties.

   When Mr.Bernard Jayaratna had gone to his estate in Pahala Dompe, Dompe and was getting ready to proceed to Biyagama Village Hotel, Suranga Jayaratna who had dressed himself with a helmet that covered his face and a black-coloured jacket had come and murdered his own father and had even tried to mislead the evidence and till the time he was arrested by the CID he had been maintaining close and cordial relationships with a number of higher ups in the police force. Though the CID managed to take Suranga into custody last week in relation to the murder, even by that time an innocent man had been accused for the murder and had been in jail for a number of months, undergoing severe hardships.

   As revealed from investigations, it is Suranga Jayaratna who had taken steps to make this innocent person a scapegoat in this case according to a set plan. It was because he was aware that he could get away from the suspicion aimed at him for having committed this murder and that police investigations would come to an end when an outsider is entangled in this whole affair. After killing his father, in the same way he took steps to acquire all properties belonging to his father and thereby be the administrator of his immobile assets; thus fooling even his sister Surangi Jayaratna. In the early stages he was successful in strategically pointing the finger on her husband as the suspect.

   Mr.Bernard Jayaratna too was by no means a simple man at all. In fact, he was someone who maintained connections with police officers of a high rank as well as prominent figures in the political field. For this very reason all of them were curious about the murder of Bernard Jayaratna.

   At the time Mr.Bernard Jayaratna was among the living, he had bestowed a part of his wealth to employees who were close to him or those who associated him closely. Even the land at Pahala Dompe had been written in the name of a female employee at Biyagama Village Hotel. It is mentioned that the said land was the most fertile among lands owned by Mr.Bernard Jayaratna. Though the situation was such, Mr.Bernard Jayaratna was having in mind to finish off his personal liabilities by writing the rest of his properties in the name of his two children. But it was before this plan was implemented that the son committed a 'aananthareeya paapakarma' in this manner.

   The CID was suspecting Suranga Jayaratna for the murder of Bernard Jayaratna right from the start. However, there was no evidence at all which could confirm such a suspicion from Suranga Jayaratna. What the investigators thought was that the murder was committed on a contract given by Suranga Jayaratna. When no evidence was found even after having perused telephone network data suspicions began to be directed at Bernard Jayaratna's daughter Surangi's husband. But there was no evidence for the police to say that he has had a hand in the murder. It was at this stage that a complaint was made by Suranga to the Colombo CID that he was receiving threats against his life from a certain gang who were also asking for a ransom and that they were the very people who murdered his father.

    On the said complaint, a team of officers from the Colombo CID set off to Biyagama Village Hotel and 4 young men there were suspected as being involved in this case. On interrogating these 4 people the team of police officers understood that the complaint made by Suranga was a bogus one and took steps to release them as it was not the proper thing to label them as criminals and thus send them to prison.

    However, it did not take much time for the chief of the investigation team to face unexpected negative reactions. On police orders issued from higher authorities, the chief investigating officer, IP Priyanka who was on the tracks of Suranga was given a transfer from the Colombo CID. In the same way, from the same authorities who issued this transfer then took the 4 young men at Biyagama Village Hotel into custody by the Colombo CID and were produced before courts as suspects of the murder of Bernard Jayaratna.

    The episode does not end there because the police did not have suficient evidence to prove that these men were guilty of the killing of Bernard Jayaratna and they were finally released on court orders.

    It was at this juncture that the rest of the story begins to unfold. One day during the first few months of this year, the Colombo CID happened to receive an anonymous telephone call. The caller said that the watcher of Pahala Dompe estate in  Dompe had threatened him saying that he too would be killed in the same fashion that Bernard Jayaratna was killed. The caller further said that this watcher who threatened him had buried a certain parcel at a particular spot in the estate.

    The CID Colombo who got into action on this telephone call then sent a team of police officers to the estate concerned. By that time the ownership of the land had been given to a certain female employee of Bernard Jayaratna. She had appointed one D.P. Susantha as the watcher of the land. Even when the team of police officers arrived there he also was there. Without paying any particular attention, the officers started digging the location pinpointed by the caller and what was recovered were 1 claymo bomb, 2 handbombs and a matchete. With these findings the police took Susantha as a suspect.

    In this case the Colombo CID did not forget to conduct an investigation into the call received. As it had originated from a wayside call-box in Padukka, the police did not look for anything more in that connection. Though the situation was such, the Colombo CID detained Susantha for a period of over 1 month saying that it was for investigation purposes. It was after this that a young man by the name of Pubudu from Dompe comes to the Colombo CID as an independent witness. He said that Susantha was the person who killed Bernard Jayaratna. Later however it was understood that this young man was a mere 'puppet' of Suranga.  Whether officers of the CID were aware of  it or not is a point to figure out and some unseen great hand may have been manipulating the whole drama. It is because of the third party who came to the Colombo CID as an independent witness who saw the person with face covered and who murdered Mr.Bernard Jayaratna.

    At this point, officers of the Colombo CID did not fail to provide this information to Pugoda Magistrate courts. It was by making all preparations to produce Susantha to an identification parade. In this case it was the mother and daughter combination who had the first-hand evidence of the Bernard Jayaratna murder who were initially called to identify Susantha. Though the two of them had admitted that they were unable to identify the murderer at that moment, they identified Susantha as the murderer of Bernard Jayaratna at the identification parade held at Pugoda Magistrate's court on April 3rd.

    Though everybody thought that the riddle of the mystery of Bernard Jayaratna's murder was solved at last, his daughter Surangi of course had no faith in the outcome of this. What she strongly believed was that all this was happening in order to lead the evidence astray and to conceal the true culprit of her father's murder. she also believed that behind the whole story was her brother as well as high-ranking police officers.

    Becauseof this very reason she hastened to write about this to the IGP and that was with the request of handing over the investigations to the CID from the Colombo CID. It may be because she too had connections with a large number of higher-ups in the police who had cordial with her; perhaps with their advice.

    It was then that steps were taken to hand over all investigations so far conducted by the Colombo CID on the murder of Bernard Jayaratna to the CID from the date of last May.

   From that time onwards Suranga Jayaratna could no longer evade allegations aimed at him for murder of his father. It was because he was cornered by the CID and not only him but the police constable of the Special Task Force who brought the stock of bombs for Suranga with the intention of trapping Susantha who was employed  as the watcher of the estate. This police constable was a driver and was also an intimate friend of Suranga as well. He was Sugath Wickremasingha by name. It was he who went to Batticaloe in the company of Suranga and brought the bombs to Biyagama. But whether Sugath knew as to what was going to be done with the bombs or not has still not been understood. However, it is of course quite clear that the bombs were those found at various locations hidden by the LTTE in Batticaloe.

    Incidentally it was no one else who originated the telephone call from a telephone-box to the Colombo CID and the possessor of the matchete which was used to murder Mr.Bernard Jayaratna other than Suranga himself.

    Therefore it is now quite clear as to who committed the murder of Mr.Bernard Jayaratna. Though an innocent person had had to go to jail, the true murderer has now been exposed. But the law should definitely be imposed in connection with persons who created obstacles to police investigations. On whose instructions did the independent witness who admitted and came forward and said that he saw with his own eyes the person who killed Mr.Bernard Jayaratna as well as the mother and daughter identify  Susantha as the criminal,at the identification parade? Did any monetary dealings take place in this connection? Some revealing facts would be forthcoming in respect of all that.
Source of information -- Gayan Kumara Weerasingha