JUDGEMENT

The Accused- Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Accused), along with another, was indicted before the High Court of Vavuniya on the following counts, 1. On or about 2012.01.19, within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Accused, using a deadly weapon and committed the offence of Robbery in respect of gold jewellery in the possession of Kanthiah Muttiah, punishable under Section 383 of the Penal Code, read with Section 32.

2. In the course of the same transaction, on the same date and place, the Accused, using a deadly weapon and committed the offence of Robbery in respect of gold jewellery in the possession of Muttiah Parameshwari, punishable under Section 383 of the Penal Code, read with Section 32.

3. In the course of the same transaction, on the same date and place, the Accused caused the death of Kanthiah Muttiah and thereby committed the offence of Murder punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code, read with Section 32.

4. In the course of the same transaction, on the same date and place, the Accused caused the death of Muttiah Parameshwari and thereby committed the offence of Murder punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code, read with Section 32.

The Prosecution led the evidence through eleven witnesses and marking productions from P1 to P19, and thereafter closed its case. The Accused, in their defence, made a dock statement.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the Learned High Court Judge, by judgment dated 01.12.2022, found the 1st Accused guilty on all counts. Accordingly, the Court imposed a sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment for each of the 1st and 2nd counts, and the death penalty for each of the 3rd and 4th counts. The 2nd Accused was acquitted of all charges.

Being aggrieved by the afore-mentioned conviction and the sentence, the 1st Accused has preferred this appeal to this Court. The following are the grounds of appeal as pleaded by the Accused;

1. Learned trial judge has seriously flawed with regard to the principles governing Sec. 27 recoveries;

2. Learned trial judge has erred in law by shifting the burden of proof to the Appellant;

3. Items of circumstantial evidence are wholly inadequate to support the conviction;

4. Learned trial judge failed to apply the principles governing the evaluation of circumstantial evidence cases.

The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows, According to PW 01, Pooranalingam Chandrakala, the daughter of both deceased persons, they owned and cultivated an agricultural land in Pandari Kulam, where they also resided. The witness testified that she has two elder brothers and a younger sister, all of whom are living abroad, while she resides separately with her husband. It was her evidence that her father, deceased, used a mobile phone registered in the name of her younger sister, Sasikala.

According to the witness, approximately one month prior to the incident, the 1st and 2nd Accused had been working on the land belonging to the deceased. She further testified that on the morning of 20.01.2019, a relative informed her that her mother had been murdered and her father was missing. Upon rushing to her parents’ residence, she found her mother lying on the floor, deceased. Her father’s body was subsequently discovered on her uncle’s land.

The witness further stated that her father had been wearing three rings, while her mother possessed four rings, a pair of earrings, a pair of bangles, and a necklace. She testified that she identified all the aforementioned jewellery at the police station.

During the testimony, PW 14, Nagarasa Chandradevi, the sister-in-law of the deceased Muttiah Parameshwari, stated that she visited the deceased’s residence daily. She and the deceased would regularly go to a nearby kovil to light a lamp. On 20.01.2019, when the deceased failed to appear at the kovil as usual, the witness proceeded to her residence. There, she found the deceased lying on the floor, already dead, with visible injuries on her body and her jewellery removed by