Back
2025 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 189
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
B. Sasi Mahendran, Amal Ranaraja, JJ
Pathirannahalage Nimal Weerasinghe – Appellant
Versus
The Hon. Attorney General – Respondent
CA-HCC-238/19
Jagath Nanayakkawa for the Accused- Appellant Maheshika Silva DSG for the Respondents
The court ruled that the accused's defense of provocation was not established, affirming the murder conviction based on credible eyewitness testimony.
Headnote:(A) Section 296 of the Penal Code - Appeal against conviction for murder - The conviction was affirmed based on the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the rejection of the provocation defense. (Paras 8-9)
(B) Evidence - Evaluation of eyewitness testimony - Eyewitness maintained consistency in her account of the stabbing incident, corroborated by medical evidence. (Paras 10-11)
(C) Provocation Defense - Accused failed to establish grounds for provocation in line with legal standards, where provocation must be grave and sudden. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
Accused was convicted of murdering the deceased, with eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence establishing the nature of the crime. The defense claimed provocation but offered no sufficient evidence to support it.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as the evidence supported the conviction and the defense of provocation was invalid. (Paras 15-18)
Issues: Whether any provocation occurred that would mitigate the charge from murder to culpable homicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of self-control due to provocation, and evidence showed the act was premeditated rather than reactive. (Paras 19-21)
Result: The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
JUDGMENT
B. Sasi Mahendran, J.
The Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Accused’) was indicted before the High Court of Kegalle for committing murder of Wijesundara Mudiyanselage Punchi Appuhamy an offence punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code . After the trial, the learned High Court Judge convicted the accused guilty and the death sentence was imposed.
Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Accused had preferred an appeal to this court and submitted the following grounds of appeal:
1. Whether the Learned High Court Judge of Kegalla has failed to give the benefit of the arising doubts to the benefit of the Accused-Appellant?
2. The previous and the post behaviour of the Accused
The prosecution led the evidence through 12 witnesses, and marked productions from P1 to P7 and thereafter closed its case. After the conclusion of the prosecution case, the accused, in his defence, made a dock statement.
The facts and the circumstances are briefly summarised as follows:
According to the testimony of PW 01, Weerakkodi Arachchige Nandawathi, the Accused son-in-law of the deceased, Wijesundara Mudiyanselage Punchi Appuhamy allegedly visited the latter’s residence around 14.09.2012, seeking his wife, the youngest daughter of both PW 01 and the deceased. The Accused conversed with the deceased for about half an hour, during which PW 01 moved inside the house. She later overheard the Accused scolding the deceased. He then called the deceased closer, claiming he wanted to share a secret. As the deceased complied, PW 01 witnessed the Accused launch a sudden attack on his neck, inflicting multiple injuries. Out of fear, PW 01 did not intervene immediately. When she tried to stop the assault, the Accused chased her, prompting her to lock the house and run outside to hide. She subsequently contacted her second daughter from a neighbouring residence, requesting immediate assistance.
PW 11, Dr. Solanga Arachchige Don Channa Perera, the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) who conducted the post-mortem examination, observed 13 incised injuries on the body of the deceased, primarily concentrated on the head, neck, and chest. According to his expert opinion, the injuries were inflicted by a curved instrument through multiple forceful strikes, resulting in extensive bodily harm. His findings aligned with the testimony of PW 01, further corroborating the account of the stabbing.
PW 02, Kithulgala Darmadassi Thero, testified that he encountered the Appellant near the temple’s belfry and overheard his conversation on the phone. Upon crossing to the opposite side of the road, PW 02 noticed a crowd gathered near the residence of the deceased. He then contacted the police. Subsequently, PW 10, Inspector of Police R.A. Roshantha Samarasekara, arrested the Appellant on 14.09.2012 and recorded his statement. According to PW 10’s testimony, a cleaver was recovered that night based on information provided by the Appellant. However, PW 01 contradicted this account, stating that the cleaver had been found near a banana tree and was handed over to her by a neighbouring woman employed at a garment factory.
The learned High Court Judge excluded PW 10’s evidence on that specific matter. However, the Judge found PW 01’s narrative of the stabbing incident to be consistent and credible, deeming it sufficient to support the conviction of the accused.
Upon evaluating the testimony of PW 01, the sole eyewitness to the alleged incident, it is apparent that she consistently maintained her claim of having personally witnessed the occurrence. During cross-examination, defence counsel suggested that she had not actually observed the incident. In response, PW 01 firmly reaffirmed that she had indeed seen the events unfold. Furthermore, she stated that, based on the conduct and manner of speech of the parties involved, she did not observe anything that appeared suspicious prior to the incident.
page 54
අධිකරණයෙන්
ප්ර : විත්තිකරු කතා කර කර උනන්නන් තමුන්නේ පුර
