Judgment

1. The accused–appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) was indicted for the possession and trafficking of 2.24 grams of heroin, offences punishable under Section 54A(b) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, as amended byAct No. 13of1984.

2. The trial commenced in the High Court of Chilaw,and at the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned High Court Judge found the appellant guilty of the charges. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. It is against this conviction and sentence that the appellant has lodged the present appeal. The following are the grounds of appeal advanced bytheappellant:

a. Theprosecution has not proved the chain ofproductions;

b. Theevidence of PW1 andPW2 lacks credibility;

c. The learned High Court Judge has not given adequate reasons for rejecting thedockstatement; and, d. Thesentence imposedontheappellant is excessive.

3. On behalf of the prosecution, three witnesses testified, namely, Lal Amaratunga (PW1), Shirly Wijesingha (PW2), and the Assistant Government Analyst, K. Ratnapala (PW12). After the close of the prosecution case, the appellant made adock statement.

4. PW2, Shirly Wijesingha, was the first to testify. According to PW2, the raid was conducted based on information received from Excise Officer No. 698, Indika. In his testimony, PW2 stated that fourteen officers participated in the raid, all of whom were in civilian attire. They proceeded to the Chilaw area in two vehicles, and later, a third vehicle belonging to one of the officers in the raiding party joined them.

5. At approximately 5:30 p.m., near the Cargills supermarket in Chilaw, they arrested three suspects: Sinnasamy Velu Ambalagan, Perayamage Pradeep Kumara, and the driver of the three-wheeler in which they arrived. Heroin was recovered from thepossession ofVeluAmbalagan.

6. Upon questioning the suspects, it was revealed that the heroin recovered from Velu Ambalagan had been supplied by one Hasanthan Rajanathan, who is the appellant in the present case. It was further disclosed that the appellant was scheduled to meet the suspects at 6:30 p.m. in Chilaw to collect the proceeds from thesale oftheheroin hehad supplied.

7. Accordingly, one of the suspects, Pradeep, who had been arrested near the Cargills building, was instructed to call theappellant. Following this telephone call, the appellant arrived at the location and was apprehended by the officers. Upon conducting a search of the appellant, a small parcel of heroin concealed underthe hem ofhis undergarment was recovered bythewitness.

8. Thereafter, the parcel was sealed, and the officers returned to Colombo with thethree suspects. Upon arrival at theAnti-Narcotic Section of their office, the contents of the parcel were weighed and re-sealed, bearing the appellant’s fingerprints. Subsequently, the appellant, along with the productions, was produced before the Magistrate’s Court ofChilaw.

9. In drug-related cases, contradictions within the prosecution’s evidence, or between the prosecution and the defense, can seriously undermine the prosecution’s case and may even lead to an acquittal. While minor inconsistencies are generally immaterial, major discrepancies can impair the credibility of witnesses and create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, particularly when they relate to material facts inissue.

10.Since it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of custody, I shall first consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution in that regard. In a case of this nature, one of the most essential elements that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt is the chain of custody. This refers to the chronological documentation of the custody,transfer,anddispositionofthe substance recovered from the appellant. It traces the movement oftheseized drugs from thetimeof recovery until their production in court as evidence. The chain of custody operates as a