JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The above-named Appellant was indicted by the Attorney General under Sections 354 and 365 B (2) (b) of the Penal Code for committing the offence of Kidnapping from lawful guardianship and two counts of Grave Sexual Abuse on Hettiarachchilage Sanduni Indunl Kumari on 17/11/2010.

The trial commenced on 16/01/2016. After leading all necessary witnesses, the prosecution closed their case. The learned High Court Judge had called for the defence and the Appellant had made statement from the dock and closed his case.

The learned High Court Judge after considering the evidence presented by both parties before him and his predecessor, convicted the Appellant as charged, and sentenced the Appellant to 02 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- subject to a default sentence of 03 months simple imprisonment for the first count.

For the second count, the Appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- subject to a default sentence of 06 months simple imprisonment.

For the third count, the Appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- subject to a default sentence of 06 months simple imprisonment.

In addition, a compensation of Rs.100,000/- was ordered with a default sentence of 06 months simple imprisonment. The Learned High Court Judge had further ordered the sentences imposed on count one, two and three to run concurrent to each other.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant informed this court that the Appellant has given consent to argue this matter in his absence. During the argument he was connected via Zoom platform from prison.

The Facts of this case albeit briefly are as follows.

According to PW1 - the victim of this case, she had been about 08 years old when she faced this bitter ordeal. When she gave evidence, she was 17 years old. The victim and her other siblings had been staying with her parents at the time of the commission of the offence. The Appellant is a well-known person to the victim’s father as both had worked together. On the day of the incident, in the morning the Appellant had gone to the victim’s house to accompany victim’s father. As victim’s father was getting ready, the Appellant under the guise of buying a pencil box to the victim, took the victim on his bike without informing her family.

The Appellant, first took the victim to the beach and bought food for her. Thereafter, he took the victim to an unfinished and abandoned house, removed the under garment of the victim and kissed, licked and fingered her vagina. After that, when both were returning home, one tyre of the Appellant’s bicycle got puncture. Thereafter, the Appellant had taken his bicycle to a repair shop and dropped the victim near a cometary.

In the meantime, the family members had started to search for the victim, even informed the police. The victim’s brother PW7 had located the victim and the Appellant near a bicycle repair shop. He had caught the Appellant, handed over him to police check point and took the victim back home.

Thereafter, a complaint was lodged at the Negombo Police Station.

The JMO who had examined the victim had opined that the examination findings of genital area are consistent with alleged sexual abuse involving genital area.

After the closure of the prosecution’s case, the defence was called, and the Appellant had given statement from the dock and closed his case.

The following Grounds of Appeal were raised on behalf of the Appellant:

1. The Learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the significant contradictions which goes to the root of the prosecution case.

2. The Learned High Court Judge had failed to consider that the Appellant was denied the right to a fair trial by denying the right to have the assistance of an interpreter in the event of any language disparity.

3. The Learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case before analysing the defence