IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA.

In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 331(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.

Court of Appeal No: Hon. Attorney General, CA/HCC/147/19 Attorney General Department, Colombo 12.

High Court of Hambantota Case No: HC/22/2001 Vs.

1. Godagama Kangkanamage Thilak Also known as Hiwwa

2. Jayasekara Vidanapathirana Piyadasa Also known as Kadira

3. Wanniaarachchi Kangkanamlage Also known as Sripala

4. Vilpita Rathnayakage Piyasena Accused (In the High Court 22/2001)

AND BETWEEN Jayasekara Vidanapathirana Piyadasa Also known as Kadira Accused – Appellant Vs.

Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General Department, Colombo 12. Respondent Before : Menaka Wijesundera J.

Wickum A. Kaluarachchi J.

Counsel : Delan De Silva for the Accused-Appellant.

Azard Navavi, S.D.S.G for the Respondent.

Argued on : 23.07.2024 Decided on : 27.08.2024 MENAKA WIJESUNDERA J.

The instant appeal has been filed to set aside the judgement dated 24thMay

2019 of the High Court of Hambantota.

The accused appellant with three others were indicted under Section 296 of the Penal code, for committing the murder of Allewela Pahalage Wimal Weerasinghe on or about11^th March 1982.

The first accused had died before the trial and the third and the fourth had been acquitted by the trial judge, but the accused-appellant had been convicted for the charge in the indictment. The instant appeal is filed against the said conviction and sentence.

The main grounds of appeal raised by the accused-appellant were, 1. The learned trial judge had wrongfully considered the confession made by the appellant to the magistrate, 2. The learned trial judge failed to consider the medical evidence being contrary to the matters in the confession, 3. The confession has wrongfully implicated the appellant and the trial judge had failed to consider the same.

The prosecution has based its case mainly on the confession recorded by the magistrate and the medical evidence and the evidence of the deceased mother and PW-03. The appellant had made a statement from the dock.

It is noteworthy to state that the incident had taken place in 1982, but the case for the prosecution had started after 27 years from the date of offence. The time period from the date of the offence to the first trial date is shocking but yet true, nevertheless the story of the prosecution unfolds as below, The deceased mother, namely Leelawathi, had given evidence on oath and had stated in the High court that the deceased had been about 16/17 years at the time of the offence and was the eldest of the 5 children she has had. The deceased had gone missing on a date that she cannot remember and having waited for a few days, she had lodged a complaint to the police. After a few days, the police had taken her to Madhunagala forest, where she has seen decapitated body parts, which had been beyond recognition but she had identified a piece of cloth to have belonged to her deceased son, by the stitches she is supposed to have made on it, just before the disappearance. Police also has shown her a bottle which they believed had contained a poisonous substance. This witness had been cross examined lengthily but she had stood the test of cross-examination well.

Thereafter, the prosecution had led the evidence of PW-02, namely Sirisena, who is supposed to have given the information to the police on seeing scattered body parts of a human being in the Madhunagala forest, when he took his cattle to graze.

Next, the prosecution had led the evidence of the learned magistrate who had recorded a statement under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code on

09/04/1982. The learned magistrate had been retired at the time he had given evidence and he had done so after 28 years since retiring. According to his evidence, the accused-appellant was produced to his chamber by the police on

08/04/1982 and the accused-appellant had expressed his desire to make a confession. According to his evid