SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 296

COURT OF APPEAL
Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J
Thushara Sanjeewa Witharana and others – Appellant
Versus
The Hon.Attorney General – Respondent
CA/HCC/0037/041/2024



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 331 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, read with Article 138 of The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal No: Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CA/HCC/0037-041/2024 COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Kurunegala 1. Thushara Sanjeewa Vitharana Case No: HC/201/2023 2. Nuwara Pakshage Pradeep Nishantha Thilakarathne

3. Adhikari Mudiyanselage Chaminda Bandara Adhikari

4. Ilaludeen Zulfikar

5. Warnasuriya Patabendige Lakshman Priyantha ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN

1. Thushara Sanjeewa Witharana

2. Nuwara Pakshage Pradeep Nishantha Thilakarathne

3. Adhikari Mudiyanselage Chaminda Bandara Adhikari

4. Ilaludeen Zulfikar

5. Warnasuriya Patabendige Lakshman Priyantha ACCUSED-APPELLANTS Vs.

The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Amila Palliyage with Sandeepani Wijesooriya, Savani Udugampola, Lakitha Wakishta Arachchi and Subaj De Silva for the 1st Accused-Appellant : Priyantha Nawanna, P.C. with Edward Jayasinghe and Sachini Senanayake for the 2nd and 5th Accused-

Appellants : Lakmal Ratnayake with Vivendra Ratnayake for the

3rd Accused-Appellant : Shavindra Fernando, P.C. with K.A. Arawwawala for the 4th Accused-Appellant : Madhawa Tennakoon, D.S.G. with Padmal De Silva, S.S.C. for the Respondent Argued on : 28-06-2024 Decided on : 18-07-2024 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal preferred by the accused-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) on the basis of being aggrieved by the sentence imposed upon them by the learned High Court Judge of Kurunegala after they pleaded guilty to the charges preferred against them.

The appellants were initially indicted before the High Court of Kurunegala for committing the following offences.

1. That they conspired with a common intention to do or aid and abet to commit the destruction of a building belonging to the Kurunegala Municipal Council situated at No. 01, Kurunegala-Dambulla Road, and committed the offence of conspiracy to commit mischief to the said building on or about 14-07-2020 at Kurunegala within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kurunegala, and thereby committed an offence punishable in terms of section 02 of the Offences Against Public Property Act No. 12 of 1982 as amended by the Offences Against Public Property (Amendment) Act No. 76 of 1988 and 28 of 1999 read with section 113B, 102 and 410 of the Penal Code.

2. At the same time and at the same transaction as mentioned in count

1, the 4th and the 5th appellants caused mischief to the earlier mentioned public property by demolishing it which had a value of Rs. 7,250,000/-, and thereby committed an offence punishable in terms of section 02 of the Offences Against Public Property Act No. 12 of 1982 as amended by the Offences Against Public Property (Amendment) Act No. 76 of 1988 and 28 of 1999 read with section 32 and 408 of the Penal Code.

3. At the same time and at the same transaction as mentioned in count

1, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants instigated or conspired or aided and abetted the 4th and 5th appellants to commit the said mischief, and thereby committed an offence punishable in terms of section 02 of the Offences Against Public Property Act No. 12 of 1982 as amended by the Offences Against Public Property (Amendment) Act No. 76 of 1988 and

28 of 1999 read with section 102 of the Penal Code.

4. At the same time and at the same transaction as mentioned in count

1, the 4th and the 5th appellants destroyed the earlier mentioned building which was an ancient monument, and thereby committed an offence punishable in terms of section 15B of the Antiquities Ordinance No. 9 of 1940 as amended by Antiquities (Amendment) Act No. 24 of

1998 read with section 32 of the Penal Code.

5. At the same time and at the same transaction as mentioned in count

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top