A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of proof that points solely to guilt, with any doubt necessitating an acquittal.

Judgment

1. This appeal arises from the Judgment dated 31.10.2022, delivered by the learned High Court Judge of Hambantota, by which the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder under Section 296 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death.

2. The Accused–Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) was indicted for committing the murder of T.B. Jeewani Samanmalee, a 12-year-old girl, by stabbing her at her residence. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant are as follows:

a. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider that the items of circumstantial evidence surrounding the case are wholly inadequate to prove the case of the prosecution against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt;

b. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the failure of the prosecution to rule out the possibility of a third party committing the crime;

c. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the inherent improbable nature of the prosecution case;

d. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider that the Appellant was denied the right to a fair trial by not permitting the defense to mark and produce the photographs of the crime scene through the prosecution witness who had taken the relevant photographs.;

e. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider that the prosecution has not establish the link between the recovery under section 27(1) of the Evidence Ordinance and the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt;

f. The learned High Court Judge has perused the police statement when writing the judgment in contravention of section 110(4) of Cide of Criminal Procedure Act and thereby denied a fair trial to the Appellant;

g. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider that the Appellant is deprived of the right to fair trial as the Appellant was denied to the right of fair investigation; and, h. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Background to the facts:

3. The deceased was living with her mother and stepfather at their residence at Lunugamwehera. The Appellant was married to the elder sister of the deceased. Two weeks before the alleged incident, the Appellant came to the deceased’s house in search of her wife who had gone missing.

4. On the day of the incident, the deceased’s mother (PW1) and her husband had gone out to attend to some work and to collect an appointment letter for the position of hospital attendant, leaving only the Appellant and the deceased at home.

5. As the deceased did not attend school on that day, the Appellant and the deceased were the only occupants of the house. After collecting the letter of appointment and completing her work, PW1 attempted to call the deceased, but received no response, which aroused her suspicion. PW1 then set off for home by bus and, on the way, saw her husband near a hotel in Lunugamwehera.

6. She then alighted from the bus and informed her husband of the incident, after which she lodged a complaint with the police. Subsequently, they returned home accompanied by several police officers and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood in one of the rooms of the house. The Appellant was not present in the house.

7. According to her evidence, when they were leaving the house in the morning, the deceased was playing in the compound with the Appellant. The witness identified the school bag of the deceased, which was marked as P2. The defence admitted the identity of the school bag, and the admission was recorded under Section 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.

8. The second witness who testified for the prosecution was PW2, Chandrasiri Munasingha, a neighbour residing opposite the house of the deceased. According to his testimony, on the day of the incident he was at home with his wife and son. The witness’s house and the deceased’s house were separated by a narrow path and encl