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/0244/16 COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Panadura 1.Kulathunga Aarachchige Pushpakumara Case No: HC/2269/2006 Perera

2.Bomiriyage Lakshman Ranganath Gomez ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN

2. Bomiriyage Lakshman Ranganath Gomez ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

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

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

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Tenny Fernando with Terin Marasinghe for the Accused-Appellant : Dileepa Pieris, S.D.S.G. for the Respondent Argued on : 12-06-2024 Written Submissions : 29-09-2017 (By the Accused-Appellants)

: 17-10-2018 (By the Respondent)

Decided on : 30-08-2024 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal by the 2nd accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) on the basis of being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence by the learned High Court Judge of Panadura.

The appellant along with the 1st accused was indicted before the High Court of Panadura for committing the following offences.

1. That they caused the death of one Pullikutty Arachichige Punchinona on 19-02-2002, at a place called Halthotiyawaththa in Horana within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Panadura, and thereby committed the offence of murder, punishable in terms of section 296 read with section 32 of the Penal Code.

2. At the same time and at the same transaction, they committed the offence of robbery of jewellery and other property valued at Rs. 62,000/- belonging to one Lokupathirage Mallika Indrani, and thereby committed an offence punishable in terms of section 380 of the Penal Code.

3. Alternative to the 2nd count as above, the 1st accused at the same time and at the same transaction had in his possession stolen property mentioned in count 2, and thereby committed an offence punishable in terms of section 394 of the Penal Code.

4. Alternative to the 2nd count as above, the 2nd accused, namely the appellant, at the same time and at the same transaction had in his possession stolen property mentioned in count 2, and thereby committed an offence punishable in terms of section 394 of the Penal Code.

After trial without a jury, the learned High Court Judge of Panadura of his judgment dated 13-10-2016 found both the accused including the appellant who was the 2nd accused guilty for the 1st and the 2nd count preferred against them, and accordingly, they were acquitted of the 3rd and the 4th count preferred on the basis that they were alternative counts to count 2.

The 1st accused indicted had absconded the Court throughout the trial, and the trial has been proceeded against the 1st accused in terms of section 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.

After the 1st accused was found guilty, the learned High Court Judge has sentenced him for death on the 1st count and for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment on count 2. He has also been fined Rs. 20,000/- with a default sentence of 2 years simple imprisonment.

Having considered the allocutus of the appellant, where he has said that he was a 16-year-old schoolboy at the time of the commission of this offence, the learned High Court Judge has imposed life imprisonment in lieu of death sentence in relation to the 1st count. He has also been sentenced to a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment on count 2. In addition, he has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with a default sentence of 2 years simple imprisonment.

The Grounds of Appeal At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant formulated the following grounds of appeal to be considered by the Court.

1. The learned High Court Judge misdirected himself by failing to properly evaluate the evidence against the 2nd a