Suspended police head blames President Sirisena for failing to prevent Lanka attack
Colombo: Sri Lanka's suspended police chief has accused President Maithripala Sirisena of failing to prevent the Easter bombings that killed over 250 people as he filed a petition in the Supreme Court against his "unfair dismissal" over the catastrophic intelligence failure.
Inspector-General Pujith Jayasundara was sent on compulsory leave by Sirisena for his alleged inaction on the intelligence shared by India, which warned of an impending attack by Islamic militants, and thereby, failing to prevent the serial blasts on April 21.
In the petition submitted to the court last week, Jayasundara revealed serious lack of communication between intelligence agencies and security arms of the government, all which fall under Sirisena, and claimed he was sidelined and excluded from attending National Security Council meetings since a political rift between the president and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe emerged in October last year.
In October 2018, Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The police was under the control of Wickremesinghe.
In the 20-page complaint, the former police chief said Sirisena had asked Nilantha Jayawardena, the head of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) -- country's premier spy agency, to report directly to the president on matters of national security.
Jayasundara claimed despite having intelligence inputs from India about an impending attack, the SIS chief did not take the warning seriously and take any action on it.
On April 9, Jayasundara said he received a letter from Sisira Mendis, the chief of national intelligence, giving information on the planned attack. He also received a phone call from the Secretary to the then Defence Minister Hemasiri Fernando on the impending attacks. Fernando was also sacked by Sirisena for his alleged failure to prevent the attacks.
The former Inspector-General claimed despite the SIS not sharing security warning information with the police department, he alerted Jayawardena about the impending threat but the SIS head did not ask him to take any action.
More than 250 people were killed in eight coordinated suicide bomb attacks carried out by local Jihadi group National Thowheed Jammath (NTJ) linked to the ISIS on April 21.
Two days after the attacks, Jayasundara said, Sirisena asked him to take the responsibility for the failure to prevent the bombings and step down in exchange for a diplomatic posting.
However, he refused to do so following which Sirisena sacked him "illegally".
Earlier on Thursday, Sirisena said he was not privy to an intelligence warning on the Easter suicide bombings, contradicting the national intelligence chief Mendis' testimony before a parliamentary probe panel.
During a visit to New Delhi last week to attend Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony, Sirisena said a clear report about a possible terror attack was sent by Indian intelligence agencies to their Sri Lankan counterparts 17 days prior to the April 21 bombings but he was not informed about it.
"Had I known about a possible attack, I would have taken necessary steps to prevent it," Sirisena said.
Sirisena said he left for a foreign trip on April 16 and till then he was not informed about the Indian intelligence report, though there had been exchanges on the issue between the defence secretary and the then inspector general of police.
"Had I known it, I would not have left the country," he had said.
A parliamentary select committee was appointed to probe the events leading to the April 21 attacks and any lapses by those responsible following reports that India had alerted the Sri Lankan defence establishment on the impending attacks.
Testifying before the committee on Wednesday, Mendis said that at an intelligence coordination meeting on April 9 discussed the information received on the impending attacks, however, it "was never a main point for discussion".
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Broken relationships don't automatically amount to abetment of suicide: SC
New Delhi (PTI): Broken relationships, while emotionally distressing, do not automatically amount to abetment of suicide in the absence of intention leading to the criminal offence, the Supreme Court on Friday said.
The observations came from a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan in a judgement, which overturned the conviction of one Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi by the Karnataka High Court for the offences of cheating and abetment of suicide under the IPC.
"This is a case of a broken relationship, not criminal conduct," the judgment said.
Sanadi was initially charged under Sections 417 (cheating), 306 (abetment of suicide), and 376 (rape) of the IPC.
While the trial court acquitted him of all the charges, the Karnataka High Court, on the state's appeal, convicted him of cheating and abetment of suicide, sentencing him to five years imprisonment and imposing Rs 25,000 in fine.
According to the FIR registered at the mother's instance, her 21-year-old daughter was in love with the accused for the past eight years and died by suicide in August, 2007, after he refused to keep his promise to marry.
Writing a 17-page judgement, Justice Mithal analysed the two dying declarations of the woman and noted that neither was there any allegation of a physical relationship between the couple nor there was any intentional act leading to the suicide.
The judgement therefore underlined broken relationships were emotionally distressing, but did not automatically amount to criminal offences.
"Even in cases where the victim dies by suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim," said the apex court.
The court further said, "Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.”
The judgement said there was no evidence to suggest that the man instigated or provoked the woman to die by suicide and underscored a mere refusal to marry, even after a long relationship, did not constitute abetment.
