Judgment

1. The Accused–Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was indicted before the High Court of Ratnapura on two counts, namely:

a. For committing the murder of Kankanamlage Punchi Banda alias Nilame, an offence punishable under section 296 of the Penal Code.

b. For causing simple hurt to Mahakandawatta Arachchilage Manjula, an offence punishable under section 315 of the Penal Code.

2. The trial against the Appellant was heard without a jury by a Judge of the High Court. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned High Court Judge found the Appellant guilty on the first count and accordingly sentenced him to death.

3. It is against said conviction and the sentence, the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal. The grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant are as follows:

1. The Learned High Court Judge failed to analyze the prosecution case properly and failed to consider the evidence favorable to the defence.

2. The Learned High Court Judge rejected the defence evidence on a wrong premises and failed to consider the evidence of the Appellant which would suffice to create a reasonable doubt of the prosecution case.

3. That the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

4. However, during the argument, the Appellant mainly contended that he had committed the murder of the deceased due to grave and sudden provocation and therefore could not have been convicted under section 296, but should instead have been convicted under Exception 1 to section 294.

5. The prosecution relied on two eyewitnesses, namely H. L. Karunarathne (PW1) and M. M. Manjula Amarasinghe (PW2). PW1 is the brother of the Appellant. According to the evidence of PW1, the incident took place at the residence where the Appellant and his aged father lived. On the day of the incident, as requested by the Appellant, PW1 came to look after their bedridden father. On that day, the deceased, PW2, and one Somarathne also visited the house to see the father of the Appellant and PW1.

6. According to the testimony of PW1, the deceased, PW2 Manjula, and Somarathne were seated and talking to each other. All of a sudden, the Appellant attacked PW2 with a knife, causing PW2 to run away. Thereafter, the Appellant attacked the deceased several times with the same knife, and when the deceased ran outside, the Appellant struck him again, causing the deceased to fall to the ground.

7. PW2, in his evidence, admitted that the deceased was under the influence of liquor at the time of the incident. According to his testimony, the Appellant first attacked him, and as he ran away, he did not see what happened thereafter.

8. PW7 is the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. In his evidence, the JMO described the nature and extent of the injuries observed on the body of the deceased. According to the JMO, there were twenty injuries in total, of which nineteen were caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, and 8 were classified as grievous. In the JMO’s opinion, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from multiple cut injuries inflicted by a heavy, sharp weapon.

9. The JMO further stated that had the deceased been treated without delay, he could have been saved; however, the cumulative effect of the injuries, when considered in their totality, was highly likely to cause death.

10. Furthermore, the JMO explained the injuries sustained by PW2 Manjula Amarasinghe and stated that Injuries Nos. 1, 3, and 5 were caused by a sharp- cutting weapon.

11. D.S.D. Weerasinghe, ASP of Seethawakapura, testified as PW6. He conducted the investigation into the incident, visited the scene of the crime, and recorded his observations. According to his observations, there were blood patches in the compound of the house as well as in the kitchen. It thus appears that the attack took place inside the kitchen and that the deceased and the injured were present there at the time of