IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal against an order of the High Court under section 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of

1979.

Court of Appeal No: Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CA/HCC/0398/2017 COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Gampaha Weerasinghe Mohandiramge Nihal Case No: 114/2009 Wickramarathne ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Weerasinghe Mohandiramge Nihal Wickramarathne ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Indica Mallawaratchy for the Accused-Appellant : Azard Navavi, S.D.S.G. for the Respondent Argued on : 04-12-2023 Written Submissions : 12-01-2022 (By the Respondent)

: 31-08-2018 (By the Accused-Appellant)

Decided on : 29-04-2024 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal preferred by the accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) on the basis of being aggrieved of his conviction and the sentence by the learned High Court Judge of Gampaha.

The appellant was indicted before the High Court of Gampaha for causing the death of one Nadeeka Dilrukshi on or about 23-12-2007, at a place called Makawita within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Gampaha, and thereby committing the offence of murder punishable in terms of section 296 of the Penal Code.

After trial without a jury, the learned High Court Judge of Gampaha found the appellant guilty as charged of his judgment dated 31-10-2017, and accordingly he was sentenced to death.

The facts as narrated in evidence at the trial can be briefly summarized in the following manner.

Facts in Brief According to the evidence of PW-02 Lakmal Jayarathne, who was the appellant’s mother’s younger brother, he has received a telephone call from the appellant stating that the woman he was married to from the area he was living at that time is dead. The witness knew that the appellant was living in Gampaha area at that time. After the telephone conversation, the witness has advised the appellant to surrender to the police.

He has been unaware of any details of the marriage of the appellant to the mentioned female or has not seen her before. However, in his evidence he has stated that he knew that the appellant was already married to a woman from a neighbouring village and they were living at their house in the area, where he also lived. Both the appellant and the PW-02 are from a village called Gonamulla. The evidence of the father of the victim was to the effect that her daughter was working at a garment factory in Biyagama and she was 26 years old at the time of her death. About six months prior to her death, she has got married to the appellant after a love affair, and they have been living in Makawita, Gampaha after the marriage.

His daughter has come home on 19-12-2007 and had informed him that she had a dispute with her husband and the husband wanted her to bring Rs.50,000/-. However, since they do not have such amount of money, he had been unable to give it to her and she has left the house on the following day around 8.00 p.m. in the night. Subsequently, his elder daughter who had been living close by has received a telephone call by the police informing of her death.

It appears that the father of the deceased knew little about the married life and the relationship his daughter had with the appellant and had never visited her while she was living in Gampaha.

When he was giving evidence, the defence has marked two contradictions in relation to his evidence. The first contradiction being of him saying in the statement to the police that, it was the owner of the boarding where her daughter lived informed him about her death. The second contradiction had been to the effect that in the police statement, the witness has stated that it was on the 21st morning that her daughter left his house to go to her boarding, whereas in his evidence, he has conceded that if he has state