Judgment

1. The accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the learned High Court Judge of Gampaha. The appellant was indicted by the Attorney General on three counts, namely:

1. On or about the 9^th of January 2006, in Hissalikada, the appellant caused the death of one H.K.S.Dileep Kumara thereby committing an offence punishable under section 296 of the Penal Code.

2. On or about the 09.01.2006, the appellant attempted to murder one V.P.A.R.S.Pathirana thereby committing an offence under section 300 of the Penal Code.

3. On or about the 09.01.2006, the appellant attempted to murder one H.D.P.Kumara, thereby committing an offence under section 300 of the Penal Code.

2. The trial was conducted before the Judge of the High Court without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found guilty of the first and second counts. Consequently, the learned High Court Judge convicted him and imposed a death sentence for the first count, as well as 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.00, with a default sentence of 8 months for the second count. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 100,000.00 in compensation to PW1, with a default sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment.

3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. In the petition of appeal, the appellant initially raised thirteen grounds; however, during the argument, only two grounds of appeal were pursued with. These are:

1. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the material discrepancies among the prosecution witnesses; and,

2. The evidence of the sole eye witness PW1 created a doubt.

4. First, I will consider whether the discrepancies highlighted among the prosecution witnesses are so significant that they go to the root of the prosecution’s case.

5. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial judge failed to consider the inter se contradictions among the witnesses, which, according to the appellant, create serious doubt regarding the credibility and testimonial trustworthiness of their evidence when assessed in its entirety. At this stage, it is necessary to briefly summarise the evidence given by the main witnesses separately in order to consider the inter se contradictions in their proper context.

6. The issue for determination is whether this inconsistency has arisen from a deliberate untruth or from a faulty memory attributable to the lapse of time. It is a settled principle of law that minor discrepancies should not be given undue emphasis; rather, the evidence must be assessed from the standpoint of overall trustworthiness. The relevant consideration is whether the testimony inspires confidence in the mind of the trier of fact. If the evidence lacks credibility and would not be accepted by a prudent person, it undoubtedly undermines the prosecution’s version as a whole. An omission or discrepancy must therefore go to the root of the matter or to the fact in issue under consideration.

7. In Veerasamy Sivathasan vs. Attorney General [SC Appeal 208/2012 (15 December 2021)] cited the following dicta of the Indian case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. M. K. Anthony [1985 AIR 48 (SC)] that;

While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view of the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sen