JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The above-named Accused-Appellant (hereinafter after referred to as the Appellant) was indicted by the Attorney General before the High Court of Kandy under Sections 54(A)(b) and 54(A)(d) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act No.13 of 1984 for Trafficking and Possession respectively of 2.80 grams of Heroin on 25th May 2013.

After the trial the Appellant was found guilty on both counts and the learned High Court Judge of Kandy has imposed life imprisonment for both counts on 07^th of June, 2023.

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

The Counsel for the Appellant informed this Court that the Appellant had given his consent to argue this matter in his absence. Hence, argument was taken up in his absence but he was connected via Zoom platform from prison.

On behalf of the Appellant, the following Grounds of Appeal were raised.

1. The learned High Court Judge erred in law by failing to consider the inconsistencies of evidence presented by the prosecution.

2. The learned High Court Judge erred in law by failing to consider the vital discrepancy with regard to the quantity of Heroin recovered from the Appellant.

3. The judgment of the learned High Court Judge is void of any reasoning and lack basic principle of law.

PW1, SI/Jayananda, was the Officer-in Charge of the Anti-Corruption Unit of the Kandy Police Station when he conducted this raid. While he and his team were engaged in daily routine duty, they had received an information from the Bogambara Prison about the discovery of Heroin by a prison Jailor. PW1 had gone to the Bogambara Prison at 13:40 hours along with a police team and had met PW11, Karunaratne, the Chief Jailor at the Prison. They had been escorted inside the prison to meet PW10, Jailor Dissanayake who had handed over the Appellant along with an envelope. PW10 had seen three cellophane parcels inside the envelope. The contents were put onto a white paper and weighed. 11 grams of substance were found in all three parcels. As such, the Appellant was arrested for possession of Heroin (diacetylmorphine). The production was entered into production register under No.133/13 and handed over to PW7, PC Seneviratne. The Appellant’s statement was recorded at the Bogambara Poison before the police party set off from the prison. On their way, PW1 and his team had conducted two more raids, arrested two other persons, and had handed them over to the reserve police officer along with the Appellant.

PW2 PC Herath Banda was called by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW1.

On the day of the arrest of the Appellant, PW10, Jailer Dissanayake had been entrusted with the duty of managing people who had come to visit the inmates. The Appellant who was a Jail Guard had come to enter the prison on that day. Having felt suspicious, PW10 had checked the Appellant in the presence of the Chief Jailor at the Chief Jailer’s Office. Upon searching, a cellophane bag with small packets suspected to be Heroin was discovered from the person of the Appellant. Initially the detected substance was sealed temporarily by using the prison seal. Thereafter the Appellant and the suspected Heroin packets were handed over to the police who came to the prison upon being informed by the Chief Jailer.

In his dock statement, the Appellant took up the position that he was never in possession of any dangerous drugs as claimed by the prosecution. Further he was never shown any parcel that was allegedly to have been recovered from him. Nothing was sealed nor weighed in front of him.

In a criminal trial, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no burden on the Appellant to prove his innocence. This is the “Golden Thread” as discussed in Woolmington v. DPP [1935] A.C.462. In this case Viscount Sankey J held that:

“Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen,