The court found that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the incident's nature, characterized as a sudden fight without premeditation.

Judgment

1. The Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was indicted before the High Court of Badulla for having committed the murder of Konara Mudiyanselage Sagara Wasantha Konara on 04.04.2010 which is an offence punishable under section 296 of the Penal Code . After a trial without a jury, the learned High Court Judge convicted the appellant of the offence of murder under section 296 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death.

2. It is against the said conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. For the prosecution, 12 witnesses testified including the interpreter of the High Court of Badulla. The appellant made a Dock Statement.

The facts germane to this case are as follows

3. On the day of the incident, the deceased attended a musical show with PW1 and PW2.

Prior to going to the show, they had consumed liquor. They travelled in a three- wheeler driven by the deceased. After the musical show, they set off in the same vehicle, and on their way, they met the appellant. Upon meeting the appellant, the deceased requested liquor, but the appellant informed them that he did not have any.

4. Thereafter, the appellant too got into the three-wheeler, and they proceeded to an eating house run by him. At that place, the deceased gave the appellant Rs. 100 and asked him to bring liquor. The appellant went to the back of the eating house, and as he was getting delayed, the deceased called out to him and again asked him to bring liquor.

5. The appellant once again informed the deceased that he did not have any liquor, but the deceased was dissatisfied with this response. Upon alighting from the vehicle, a verbal altercation ensued between them, during which the deceased abused the appellant in filthy language. Thereafter, the deceased returned to the three-wheeler and attempted to start it, and it was at that moment that the appellant stabbed the deceased.

6. Later, the deceased was admitted to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

There were two eyewitnesses to the incident, namely Samitha Rukshana (PW1) and M. Pathirana (PW2). The trial commenced with the evidence of PW1. Since PW2 had gone abroad, his evidence was taken after the other prosecution witnesses had testified, namely PW5, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW12, PW10, PW13, and PW6.

The appellant primarily relied on two grounds of appeal.

a. The learned trial Judge failed to evaluate properly the credibility of PW1 and PW2.

b. The defence version was not considered adequately

The prosecution version:

7. As can be seen from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, they, along with the deceased, were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. PW1’s testimony reveals that before they approached the appellant’s eating house, they had already consumed liquor. However, the deceased, desiring to drink more, insisted that the appellant provide him with liquor, despite the appellant’s repeated statements that he did not have any. It is also evident that an altercation arose between the appellant and the deceased when the appellant was unable to comply with the deceased’s demand.

8. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 further indicates that the deceased was well known to them and that there was no animosity among them. In fact, it was the deceased who invited the appellant to join him in his three-wheeler when they met on their way. It is also in evidence that they had consumed liquor prior to attending the musical show.

The defense version:

9. The appellant, in his dock statement, admitted that w