JUDGEMENT

The Accused- Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Accused) was indicted before the High Court of Matara on the charge of committing the offence of attempt to murder one Bulawattage Chandrasena on 11.11.2012, punishable under Section 300 of the Penal Code.

The Prosecution led the evidence through eight witnesses and marking productions from P1 to P2, and thereafter closed its case. The Accused, in his defence, gave evidence in the witness box and called one witness.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Learned High Court Judge, by a judgment dated 22.11,2017, found the accused guilty of attempting to murder. Accordingly, the Learned High Court judge imposed 8 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default term of one-month simple imprisonment. Furthermore, compensation in the sum of Rs. 200,000 carries in default term of 01-year simple imprisonment.

Being aggrieved by said judgment and sentence, this appeal was preferred by the Accused.

The following Grounds of Appeal were urged by the counsel for the Accused.

1. The Learned High Court Judge misdirected himself in Law and, in fact, in analyzing the evidence placed before the Court during the trial

2. The Learned High Court Judge misdirected himself in law and in Fact in weighing the case of the prosecution with that of the defence, prima facie rebutting the presumption of innocence.

3. The Learned High Court Judge failed to address the judicial mind in legally analyzing the evidence of the prosecution and the defence and instead arrived at conclusions based on surmise and conjecture, causing prejudice to the Accused.

4. The learned High Court judge failed to address his mind to the productions of the prosecution, wherein the prosecution failed to provide any of the weapons used during the incident, which would have provided reasonable evidence in arriving at a conclusion.

5. The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. The Trial Judge has made no effort to make a genuine judicial analysis of the contents of the evidence of the Accused in order to determine whether it would create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case

7. The Trial Judge failed to give a judicial analysis of the elements of an offence found in Section 300 of the Penal Code, and as to whether the Appellant could be found guilty thereof The main argument advanced by counsel for the Accused was that the Learned High Court Judge had not adequately considered the defence raised by the Accused. Before proceeding to evaluate the merits of this submission, it is necessary to set out the factual narrative as presented by the prosecution.

I am mindful that when this case was taken up on 31.05.2017, counsel for the accused informed the Court that a separate case was pending against Prosecution Witness No. 01 for allegedly causing injuries to the accused. It was further submitted that the parties had expressed an intention to resolve the matter through a payment of Rs. 150,000. However, this proposed settlement was declined by Witness No. 01.

The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows;

According to the testimony of Prosecution Witness No. 01, Bulathwattage Chandrasena, who is both the victim and the brother of the accused on 11th November 2012, at approximately 5:00 to 5:30 PM, while returning from the workplace of his wife and walking near Wandokkawa Road, the accused suddenly approached him and uttered the words “උබට අයිතිවාසිකම් දෙන්නම්”, before launching an attack with a knife. The knife struck the witness’s eyes and face. In an attempt to seize the weapon, the witness sustained injuries to his hand. Despite this, the accused continued to assault him with the knife. The witness retaliated, managed to disarm the accused, and threw the knife away. However, the accused then drew a second knife from his waist and resumed the attack. The witness succeeded in wresting the second knife from the accused, after which the accused fled the s