JUDGMENT

1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the sentence imposed on the accused–appellant (hereinafter “the appellant”) by the learned High Court Judge of Negombo is excessive, given the facts of the case and, in particular, the circumstances under which the alleged offence was committed.

2. The appellant was indicted before the High Court of Negombo for the murder of Manchanayaka Arachchilage Maheshi Dilshani, an offence punishable under section 296 of the Penal Code. The trial was conducted without a jury by the learned High Court Judge, who, at the conclusion of the trial, found the appellant guilty under section 297 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to eighteen years’ rigorous imprisonment. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000, with a default sentence of three months’ imprisonment. Aggrieved by this sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

Background to the appeal:

3. At the time of the incident, the deceased was a student of Kotadeniyawa Vidyalaya and was having an affair with the appellant, a soldier attached to the Sri Lanka Army. Both had attended the same school before completing their O/L examinations. On the day of the incident, the appellant, who was on leave, came to the Kotadeniyawa bus station to meet the deceased. While they were talking, the appellant asked her to go with him, but she refused. In response, the appellant threatened that he would swallow some tablets if she did not comply, yet the deceased still refused. Suddenly, the appellant pushed her against the closed doors of a nearby boutique, stabbed her, swallowed something, and then collapsed. The deceased was later taken to hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries after several days.

4. The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had acted under grave and sudden provocation, which was the cumulative effect of a series of events that had transpired between the deceased and the appellant. It was therefore argued that the sentence imposed was excessive and should be reduced. It is noteworthy that neither the appellant nor the respondent filed written submissions in this appeal. When the matter was taken up for argument, the appellant primarily relied on the grounds set out in the petition of appeal. A perusal of the High Court proceedings reveals that no submissions in mitigation were made prior to the imposition of the sentence. Furthermore, the learned High Court Judge did not provide any reasons for imposing a sentence of 18 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with the fine.

5. Therefore, I shall consider whether any mitigating factors exist, taking into account the facts of the case, particularly the attendant circumstances, the ages of both the victim and the appellant, and, more importantly, the modus operandi of the crime, along with other relevant considerations.

6. It is undisputed that the appellant stabbed the deceased, who later succumbed to her injuries at the Gampaha Hospital. The evidence establishes that the appellant and the deceased were engaged in conversation shortly before the incident. In his testimony, the appellant admitted that he had purchased a knife on his way to meet the deceased, claiming it was for self-defence as he believed certain persons were waiting to assault him, a claim I am not inclined to accept for the reasons mentioned below.

7. Weerapppulige Mahesh Kumara Ranasinghe, a defense witness, confirmed that the appellant and the deceased were having an affair. Since the appellant didn't have a phone at the time, Ranasinghe helped them communicate. According to Ranasinghe, the day before the incident, the deceased called him and asked him to tell the appellant to meet her. Ranasinghe passed on this message.

8. This testimony shows that Ranasinghe was one of the appellant’s closest friends and was aware of the affair. However, Ranasinghe did not provide anyevidence that anyone was planning to assault the appellant. If there had been