IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal made under 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.

The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo-12 COMPLAINANT Court of Appeal Case No: Liyanage Susil Prematilaka alias CA/HCC /0334/2019 Thilaka High Court of Gampaha Case No. HC/49/2008 ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Liyanage Susil Prematilaka alias Thilaka ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

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

P.Kumararatnam, J.

COUNSEL : Nihara Randeniya for the Appellant.

Dilan Ratnayake, ASG for the Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 03/05/2024 DECIDED ON : 02/08/2024 ***************************

JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The above-named Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was indicted in the High Court of Gampaha under Section 296 of the Penal Code for committing the murder of Adikari Arachchige Ariya Nandani Perera on or about 21^st February 2005.

The trial commenced before the High Court Judge of Gampaha as the Appellant had opted for a non-jury trial.

After the conclusion of the prosecution case, the learned High Court Judge had called for the defence and the Appellant made a dock statement and closed his case. After considering the evidence presented by both parties, the learned High Court Judge had convicted the Appellant under Section 296 of Penal Code and sentenced him to death on 04/10/2019.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the Appellant preferred this appeal to this court.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant informed this court that the Appellant has given consent to argue this matter in his absence. Also, at the time of argument the Appellant was connected via Zoom from prison. Following appeal grounds were advanced by the Appellant.

1. That the Learned High Court Judge failed to consider the well settled principle of law relating to a case entirely based on circumstantial evidence.

2. That the Learned trial judge convicted the Appellant based only on the fingerprint found on the handle of the almirah.

3. That the Learned trial judge made use of the weakness of the defense evidence to strengthen the case for the prosecution.

4. That the Learned trial judge failed to analyze the defense evidence in the correct perspective and rejected the same on wrong premise.

Background of the case is albeit as follows:

The deceased was an elderly woman who lived alone in her residence. Her children lived separately after marriage, but often visited, and spent time with her. Her death was discovered upon inquiry by one of her daughters as the deceased failed to answer telephone calls continually.

When PW4 went to the deceased’s house to look for her, he had seen her lying fallen near a Budha statue in the house.

PW2, who stayed at the deceased’s house on the previous night had gone for his employment. He had come back home after his sister informed him about the tragedy.

The police had visited the scene of crime after receiving first information at about 10.15 am. As the house had been ransacked, the police had called the finger print experts to the crime scene for further investigation. The finger prints officers arrived the crime scene at 11.15 am and their investigation was carried out for about three hours.

JMO who had conducted the post mortem of the deceased had given very comprehensive evidence regarding the findings mentioned in his report. The JMO had noted six stab wounds, three cut wounds and two contusions on the body of the deceased. Two stabs to the side of the chest and two stab injuries to the neck had been classified as injuries fatal in the ordinary course of nature. According to the JMO, the cause of death has been given as shock and hemorrhage due to deep penetrating wounds to the liver and main artery.

In the first ground of appeal