Decades after the former psychology lecturer, S. Karthigesu, was brought to court in a murder case, the circumstances surrounding the murder of former beauty queen Jean Perera Sinnappa on April 6, 1979, continues to captivate public interest.
The case gained heightened attention due to Jean’s celebrity status, leading many to speculate that it was a crime of passion gone wrong. Karthigesu, the victim’s brother-in-law, was arrested as the prime suspect. He was allegedly in love with Jean and wanted to marry her, while she was reported to be having an affair with a Sri Lankan doctor.
The trial that followed Karthigesu’s arrest was highly sensational. With approximately 60 witnesses testifying against him, Karthigesu was eventually found guilty and sentenced to death. However, after spending two months in prison while appealing the verdict, he was acquitted when a key witness confessed to lying 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
Following his acquittal, Karthigesu resumed his career as a lecturer, got married, and started a family of his own.
Last Sunday, Karthigesu passed away at the age of 81, leaving behind his wife, two daughters, and a son. However, the murder he was acquitted of remains an unsolved cold case.
ALSO READ: Hoping for the truth: unsolved murder mysteries in Malaysia
“The case received significant attention because Karthigesu was a teacher belonging to a respected profession. Furthermore, the victim, Jean Sinnappa, was a former beauty queen,” said former Court of Appeal judge, Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, highlighting the case’s interest within the legal fraternity as well.
Mohd Hishamudin emphasized that there were no direct witnesses to the crime. Jean, a 31-year-old widow and mother of three, had been living with Karthigesu and her mother-in-law in Klang after her husband died in a road accident. On the day of the murder, Karthigesu and Jean were driving home before Karthigesu was found disoriented next to his car, while Jean’s body, with multiple stab wounds, was discovered in the front passenger seat.
Based on circumstantial evidence, Karthigesu was arrested by the police, marking a significant moment as one of the country’s first arrests based on such evidence.
However, Mohd Hishamudin disputed this claim, stating that murder cases relying on circumstantial evidence were quite common even before Karthigesu’s trial. At the time, the judicial system still followed trial by jury, with a seven-person jury tasked with finding whether the accused committed the murder. If found guilty, the judge would pass the mandatory death penalty.
The trial lasted 38 days and featured a key prosecution witness, Bandhulananda Jayathilake, a family friend of Karthigesu, who claimed that Karthigesu had expressed that Jean “did not deserve to live.” Jayathilake’s testimony played a crucial role in Karthigesu’s death sentence.
However, just two months after the sentencing, Jayathilake recanted his previous claims, admitting to lying under oath. Mohd Hishamudin stated that it was this reversal by Jayathilake, along with the reliance on circumstantial evidence, that prompted the judge to guide the jury to deliver a not guilty verdict, leading to Karthigesu’s acquittal. Jayathilake was subsequently sentenced to 10 years in prison for perjury.
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
Despite the acquittal, the murder of Jean Sinnappa remains unsolved to this day.
Credit: The Star : News Feed
