A conviction in sexual abuse cases may rely solely on victim testimony if credible; contradictions in testimony necessitate corroboration.

JUDGEMENT

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Accused") was charged before the High Court of Mathale with committing the offence of Grave Sexual Abuse against a minor, Don Amith Dilshan Wanigasekara, on or around April 1, 2011. This offence is punishable under Section 365B (2)(b) of the Penal Code , as amended by Act No. 22 of 1995, Act No. 29 of 1998, and Act No. 16 of 2006.

During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence through four witnesses and submitted productions marked P1 to P2, following which the prosecution closed its case. Upon the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the Accused opted to make a dock statement in his defence.

Following the conclusion of the trial, the Learned High Court Judge, by judgment dated April 4, 2023, found the Accused guilty of the charge. Consequently, the Accused was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000/-, with a default sentence of two months' simple imprisonment. Additionally, the Accused was ordered to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 150,000/-, failing which he would serve a further term of twelve months' simple imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the aforementioned conviction and sentence, the Accused has preferred this appeal before this Court. The grounds of appeal advanced by the Accused are as follows:

1. The Learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the ambiguous nature of PW 1’s testimony, the internal inconsistencies within his evidence, the impact of these inconsistencies on the core of the prosecution's case, and the contradictions between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

2. The Learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the uncertainty and contradictions within the testimony of PW 1, particularly given the absence of eyewitnesses in this case. Furthermore, the reliability of PW 1’s testimony remains uncorroborated by the accounts of other prosecution witnesses.

3. The Learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the Accused’s reasons for making such allegations against him during the cross-examination.

The facts and the circumstances are briefly summarised as follows:

According to the testimony of Prosecution Witness No. 01 (PW 01), Don Amith Dilshan Wanigasekara, who was 7 years and 10 months old at the time he was residing with his grandmother, Prosecution Witness No. 04 (PW 04), Chandra Kumari Wanigasekara, near the doctors’ quarters. On April 1, 2011, while collecting tamarind near the quarters, the Accused approached him and directed him toward another tree across the way, encouraging him to gather tamarind from there. However, on the opposite side, there was no tamarind tree, only a toilet and another house. As PW 01 attempted to return, the Accused allegedly grabbed him forcefully. PW 01 further testified that the Accused then removed both his own clothing and that of the witness, and, while standing, placed his male organ between the child’s thighs.

During cross-examination, counsel for the Accused questioned PW 01 regarding his statement to the police, which indicated that the incident had taken place after he returned from school. In response, PW 01 categorically denied attending school on the morning of the incident. He clarified that he had been playing cricket and first came into contact with the Accused later that morning.

The Learned Counsel for the Accused also highlighted a discrepancy between PW 01’s testimony and the statement recorded by Prosecution Witness No. 03 (PW 03), the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO), concerning the nature of the incident. According to the JMO’s record, PW 01 had described the incident as having occurred while he was in a sleeping position. However, during his testimony, PW 01 disputed this account and consistently maintained that the offence took place while he was standing, with the Accused placing his male organ between the victim’s thighs.

Dr. Ajith Samantha Jayasena, the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO), appeared as Prosecution Witness No.