JUDGMENT

AMAL RANARAJA, J.

1. The Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) has been indicted in the High Court of Kandy in High Court case number HC/188/2010.

The charge of the indictment is as follows; Charge 01 That on or about February 16, 2010, in the District of Kandy within the jurisdiction of this Court, the appellant has committed murder by causing the death of one Muthuthanthrilage Alex Udaya Perera and have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code.

2. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned High Court Judge has found the appellant guilty of the charge and thereafter convicted him thereof and sentenced him to death.

3. The appellant aggrieved by the conviction, disputed judgment, together with the sentencing order has preferred the instant appeal to this Court.

Case of the prosecution

4. The elder daughter of the deceased, who is also the wife of the appellant, has been married to him at the time of the incident described in the charge set out in the indictment. The appellant, along with his wife and children have resided in a house in close proximity to that of the deceased and his family. A few days before the incident, the elder daughter of the deceased has returned to her parents’ home with her children due to matrimonial issues with the appellant.

5. On the day of the incident, the appellant has visited the deceased’s house, and requested his wife i.e. the daughter of the deceased, to return to their matrimonial home. She has however, refused his request.

6. This refusal has led to a quarrel between the appellant and his wife in the kitchen of the deceased’s residence. The deceased has intervened asking the couple to stop quarrelling. At that moment, the appellant has left the house through the kitchen door.

7. Shortly thereafter, the appellant has returned, entering the house in the same manner as he had left. He has then stabbed the deceased in the kitchen. This violent act has been witnessed by PW01, the wife and another daughter of the deceased. Tragically, the deceased has succumbed to his injuries.

8. Dr. M. R. Dissanayake, the Judicial Medical Officer has conducted a post- mortem examination on the deceased and subsequently prepared a post- mortem report which has been marked as exhibit “Z”.

9. Dr. M. R. Dissanayake, has stated that the cause of death of the deceased was internal hemorrhage resulting from a stab wound. He has also concluded that the corresponding injuries sustained to the internal organs of the deceased were necessarily fatal.

Case of the appellant

10. The appellant has asserted that he is unaware of the incident mentioned in the complaint and has maintained his innocence regarding any criminal activity.

Ground of appeal

11. Then the matter was taken up for argument. The Counsel for the appellant has urged the following ground of appeal, i) The learned High Court Judge has not considered the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of PW01 and also the contradictions between the evidence of PW01 and PW02 (inter se).

12. The evaluation of contradictions or omissions plays a pivotal role in determining the reliability of evidence and credibility of witness testimony. Material contradictions refer to discrepancies in statements or evidence that are significant enough to undermine the integrity of a case. These inconsistencies can arise from conflicting testimonies or variations in physical evidence.

13. On the other hand, omissions pertain to the absence of critical information that might significantly influence the outcome of a case. When a witness fails, to disclose relevant facts or details, it can create a distorted understanding of the circumstances surrounding the case.

14. The Judge bears the responsibility of processing the credibility and reliability of evidence presented during a trial. The evaluation requires a clinical understanding of the context within which the evidence is provided, as well as an awareness of the implications of the