The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; contradictions in evidence can result in an acquittal.

JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The above-named Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred as the Appellant) was indicted by the Attorney General in the High Court of Colombo under Sections 54A (b) and 54A (d) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act No.13 of 1984 for the Trafficking and for being in Possession of respectively 2.18 grams of Heroin (Diacetylmorphine) on 29^th April 2015.

Following the trial, the Appellant was found guilty on both counts and the learned High Court Judge of Colombo has imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on him on the 24th of June 2020.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the Appellant preferred this appeal to this court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant informed this court that the Appellant has given consent for this matter to be argued in his absence. During the argument he has been connected via Zoom platform from prison.

The learned Counsel, even though he raised several grounds of appeal in his written submissions, restricted his argument to the following 03 grounds of appeal.

1. That the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. The inward journey of the materials has not been proved.

3. The dock statement of the Appellant was not taken in to consideration by the learned High Court Judge.

At the trial, PW1 SI/Lional, PW3 PC 88669 Jayasinghe, PW10 CI/Rajakaruna and PW11 Government Analyst Chandani Priyadharshika were called by the prosecution to give evidence. The Appellant made a dock statement and called his mother as a defence witness.

Background of the case albeit briefly is as follows:

PW1, attached to the Police Narcotics Bureau had received an information via PW3, about the trafficking of Heroin in the Panadura area. According to the information, a person called Dilan has been expected to arrive carrying Heroin to be delivered to somebody near Thattaya Bridge. Acting on this information, PW1 had gone for the raid accompanied by five police officers. He had used a double cab bearing plate no. WP GC 2941 for this purpose. After reaching Angulana, PW3 had contacted the informant and he had arrived at the spot at 18:55 hours. As the informant had mentioned that the Appellant was expected to be late, PW1, PW3 and the informant had got into the cab and driven in the direction of the Angulana Railway Station. After about 10 minutes of their arrival, the Appellant had arrived on a motorbike. Following the confirmation by the informant, the Appellant was stopped before he could pass them and subjected to a body search. A cellophane bag was recovered from the right-side pocket of the pair of shorts worn by the Appellant. When the cellophane bag was checked by PW1 some brown coloured substance was found, which he identified as Heroin relying on his experience in dealing with narcotics. The Appellant was taken into custody immediately for further investigation.

During inquiry, the Appellant’s name was found to be Alankarage Dilan Prasanga alias Kannadiya. Before they could proceed to the Police Narcotics Bureau, the detectives had gone to the Appellant’s house for a search and they had not been able to locate any illegal items from the search.

The recovered substance was weighed at the Police narcotics Bureau and the weight of the substance with the cellophane bag had been around 15 grammes. PW1 had sealed the production and kept it in his personal locker until it was handed over to the production officer.

According to the Government Analyst Report, 2.18 grammes of pure Heroin (diacetylmorphine) had been detected from the substance, which was subjected for analysis.

When the prosecution had closed the case after leading the prosecution witnesses mentioned above, the defence was called, and the Appellant had made a dock statement and closed his case.

According to the 1^st ground of appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as the learned Trial Judge had