The credibility of a child victim’s testimony in sexual abuse cases is primarily assessed by the trial judge, who can dismiss minor contradictions unless they undermine the case's integrity.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant was indicted by the Attorney General in the High Court of Colombo on two counts: (i) kidnapping an underage child from her lawful guardian, and (ii) committing grave sexual abuse on the said child. These offences are punishable under sections 354 and 365B(2)(b) of the Penal Code , as amended by Acts No. 22 of 1995, No. 29 of 1998, and No. 16 of 2006.

2. At the trial, 5 witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution, whereas the appellant made a dock statement. At the conclusion of the trial, on 17.05.2024 the learned High Court Judge of convicted the accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) for the second charge set out in the indictment and sentenced the appellant for 8 years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was also imposed a fine of Rs 15000.00 carrying a default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

3. Furthermore, the learned trial judge ordered the appellant to pay Rs 150000.00 as compensation to the victim with a default sentence of one-year simple imprisonment. Moreover, it was ordered to run the default sentences consecutively. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

4. While many grounds were initially listed, the counsel for the appellant concentrated on two main points during the argument. The counsel argued that the trial Judge did not give enough weight to the contradictions in the evidence presented during the trial. It was further argued that the victim's statement to the police identified a nearby jungle as the crime scene, but the investigating officer inspected the appellant's house instead. Therefore, it is submitted that a potential flaw exists in the police investigation, which casts doubt on the prosecution's case.

5. Although several grounds of appeal were set out in the petition of appeal, during oral argument, counsel for the appellant primarily focused on the contradictions highlighted during the trial, contending that the learned trial judge had failed to give due consideration to them. It was further argued that, although the victim in his statement to the police stated that the offence occurred in a nearby jungle, the investigating officer had inspected only the appellant’s house, thereby revealing a potential flaw in the police investigation which, in turn, cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

6. The case of the prosecution is mainly dependent on the testimony of N.M.Avishka Madhushan, the victim, who testified as PW1. According to his evidence, the appellant was known to him and was also a distant relative. On the day of the incident, the victim was playing with his friends at a nearby playground. Before the victim went to the playground, the appellant had met him and asked him to come to the appellant's house. After playing, the victim visited the appellant's house as requested.

7. According to the victim, the alleged offense was committed on him by the appellant on a makeshift bed at the latter's residence. The appellant asked the victim to remove his clothes, which he did. Thereafter, the appellant also undressed himself, placed his penis between the victim's thighs, and moved up and down until he ejaculated. After that, the appellant gave the victim Rs 200/-, and the victim returned home. At the time of the alleged offense, the victim was 12 years old.

8. Since the appellant has placed much reliance on the contradictions per se highlighted in the testimony of the victim, it is apt to consider whether the said contradictions have the effect of tarnishing the credibility of the evidence of PW1. To elaborate further, the cardinal issue that needs co