Sathasivam murder 70 years on

By Kks Perera

On October 9, 1951, exactly 70 years ago, around one o’clock in the afternoon Mrs. Anandam Sathasivam, a mother of four little girls, who had filed divorce action against her husband a month before, was found dead on the garage floor of her home with a mortar placed on her neck. Her four-year old kid’s remark, “Mummy is having fever, she is sleeping in the garage” prompted the lady next door to rush to the scene to find her mother’s lifeless body lying face-up in the garage.

A few hours before, she was lying face-up on the floor of her upstairs bedroom, according to the servant boy William’s testimony. He alleged that her husband, famous cricketer M. Sathasivam, was pressing his left knee hard against her chest and shoulder with her right arm pinned between her chest and his knee. The 19-year old William, a recently employed domestic, obeyed the command “Allapan yakko” [‘hold her you devil], and held the lady by her legs for some minutes until the deed was done.

Was there a role that power, money and fame played in her husband, Madhavan Sathasivam’s acquittal?

Sathasivam, an accomplished batsman with stylish stroke play, was once described thus by Sir Frank Worrell, the West Indian great: ‘If I’m asked to pick a world X1, the first on the list is Sathasivam.’ Born on October 18, 1915, ‘Satha’ who started his cricket at St. Joseph’s later moved to Wesley for his final school years. At age 26, he married Paripoornam Anandam Rajendra, a granddaughter of freedom fighter, and national hero, Sir Ponnambalan Ramanathan. In 1949 they moved to Anandam’s house ‘Jayamangalam’ at 7, St. Alban’s Place in Bambalapitiya.

The defense was headed by Trotskyite Parliamentarian, Dr Colvin R de Silva. Sir Sydney Smith, renowned Professor of Forensic Medicine at Edinburgh University, flew here to testify for the defence at the cricketer’s sensational trial where Sathasivam was acquitted by the jury. Prolific run-getter and playboy, Sathasivam was a hard drinking personality who attracted thousands of fans to watch him hammer bowlers to all corners of the field. Off the field, he would drink and dance till dawn.

Former Indian Captain Gul Ahmed once said “I will never forget how he thrashed me in India. I have bowled to Hutton, Bradman, Keith Miller, the Windies three W’s – Weekes, Worrell and Walcott and got them out; but the most difficult man was Ceylon’s Sathasivam.

William, a crown witness in the case, had a hard time under cross examination by the country’s top criminal lawyers of the day, Dr. Colvin. R. de Silva. While the four-year old child had told a senior maid in the household, Podi Hami, that “mummy was sick and carried to the garage by daddy and ‘hora,’ she failed to recount this at next day’s inquest.

Professor Smith favoured the theory that William had committed the crime in the kitchen. Motive? Sex, jewelry or both. Sir Richard Aluvihare, IGP, was allegedly influenced by interested parties to pick Prof. de Saram, Head of Forensic Medicine of the University of Ceylon, [a pupil of Sir Sydney] to conduct the post mortem by-passing Dr. P S Gunawardene, JMO, Colombo. De Saram did the autopsy by himself and concluded that the victim had been strangled while she was in a standing position, supporting the theory that William murdered her.

Sathasivam was not employed and dependent on mother and wife to support his playboy lifestyle. The defence’s position was that William placed the wooden mortar on the victim’s neck, covering her face and took off with the loot. The prosecution case was that the husband on failing to convince her to withdraw the divorce she had filed, had decided to murder her inside her own house around 9.30 on that fateful morning.

Letters she mailed to him, while Sathasivam was holidaying in England were produced at the trial: excerpts reveal her frame of mind.

“. . . through sheer desperation and bitterness I put my pen….You are not going to be ‘henpecked’, but why torture me?. . I will release you from the bond. . . you leave me at home. . because you want something better than me…,.You want gaiety and variety. . . “.Four walls and money will only build a house,..but need a loving wife to make a home. .., Silver Fawn, dancing, playing cards, playing mixed games, ‘giving lifts’, drinking, this I cannot bear.”. . .

Beautiful Yvonne Stevenson who was in a clandestine affair with Satha was constantly pressurizing his partner to divorce Anandam and marry her. On the previous dayAnandam’s lawyers Mack & Mack delivered summons to Satha in a divorce action, which made him realize that he will be forced to pay maintenance for the children and alimony apart from losing his share as husband on her properties. As a last resort he made a final attempt to reconcile with wife and from Horton Place wherehe was staying visited St Alban’s Place in the early hours on October 9.

Sathasivam and William were taken into custody on suspicion. Some state prosecutors, a few top policemen and a host of influential men and leading sports stars were sympathetic towards the world renowned batting legend. The case was a forensic drama, where, Sir Sydney Smith played a principal role, ended with Sathasivam getting the ‘benefit of the doubt.’ The jury’s verdict was based on Justice E. F. N. Gratiaen’s summing up at the end of the 58-day trial at SC.

Dr. Colvin’ R. de Silva flew to the UK to brief Prof. Smith on Dr. de Saram’s evidence. Professor Smith says in his book, ‘Mostly Murder’ that: “this case interested me…De Saram was a former pupil of mine, I had formed a high opinion of his ability… from the evidence… I concluded that the case against the accused was by no means good…”

The Defence maintained that the husband had left the wife’s home in a ‘Quickshaw’ taxi; it was around 10.30 am. [The driver had testified that Mrs. Sathasivam came to the door to see her husband off.] When William was scraping a coconut in the kitchen, the lady had bent down to check his work.

As reconstructed by the eminent forensic expert, William, employed only 11 days before without any references had got sexually excited on seeing her and molested her. The seven sovereign gold necklace was another motivating factor. He strangled her from behind with both hands, before pulling the lifeless body through the narrow door-way to the garage.

Seventy years ago, unlike today, sports was a privilege confined to Colombo’s high society. The sportsmen belonged to powerful, elite ‘clubbing’ class; There was an obvious gap in the strength of the prosecution and defence at the trial. The investigation was flawed by meddling from the elite that included all ‘stakeholders’. A senior cop allegedly took William to the backyard of a police station soon after arrest and convinced the village boy to accept responsibility in return for a good job in the city. The learned judge used his skills specifically in addressing the jury emphasizing points that created a doubt.

Two eminent surgeons, Professors Paul and Pieris testified for the prosecution but their evidence was placed in doubt by the defence counsel, Dr. Colvin. R. de Silva. His performance in the case cost him his Wellawatte-Galkissa constituency with many middle class Tamil voters in the area convinced that he had saved an accused who was guilty in their own minds.

When Dr. Colvin visited Edinburgh with his assistant to brief Sir Sidney, the professor wanted him to drape a female medical student in a saree as Mrs Sathasivam wore one at the time she was was murdered. Colvin had reportedly said: “Sir Sydney, we only know how to undress them!”

It was a gripping drama from beginning to end. Was Sathasivam the killer or was it William who turned crown witness? Old and feeble at 89 [at the time of writing],he lives in Thihagoda, a hamlet in the South. Seven decades later medico-legal ‘pundits’ describe the conclusion of this historic and dramatic 57-day trial full of intricacies as a” victory for justice.”

Writer can be reached on- kksperera1@gmail.com