The court established that minor contradictions in testimony do not undermine a case's core integrity, emphasizing the importance of evaluating credibility and the context of sexual abuse offenses.

K.M.G.H. KULATUNGA, J.

Introduction

1. The accused-appellant was convicted by the High Court Judge of Gampaha for committing grave sexual abuse of a 15-year-old girl on or about 17th of November, 2010, punishable under Section 365B (2)(b) of the Penal Code , as amended by Act No. 22 of 1995. Then the accused-appellant (who hereinafter is also referred to as the appellant) was sentenced to nine years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and a six-months default sentence, and also ordered to pay Rs. 100,000/- as compensation to the victim, with one year’s default sentence. Aggrieved with the conviction and dissatisfied with the sentence the appellant has now preferred this appeal.

Facts

2. The appellant was a known neighbour of around 19 years of age and the prosecutrix was around 15 years at the time of the incident. The appellant happened to visit the victim’s house, around 2:00 PM, whilst her parents were in the paddy field and her grandfather was napping. The victim and her younger sister were in the front porch, where the appellant joined them for a chat.

3. Hearing the telephone ring inside the house, the victim had gone to answer it. The appellant has followed her in, grabbed her and forced her into a bedroom, thrown her onto a bed and closed the door. Then the appellant has covered her mouth while touching her breasts and genital area. The victim’s muffled screams have alerted her grandfather who then knocked on the door, prompting the appellant to flee by jumping over the room wall (the gap between the roof and the top end of the wall – no ceiling). The victim disclosed the incident to her parents upon their return. They first visited the appellant's parents before reporting the matter to the police on the same day.

4. The Police inter alia recorded a statement from the victim’s 70- year-old grandfather, but he passed away before the trial commenced. The evidence presented included testimony of PW- 01 the victim, PW-02 her mother, PW-05 the investigating officer and PW-06 the Judicial Medical Officer, the pathologist.

5. Upon the defence being called, the appellant made a dock statement and called his mother to testify on his behalf. The appellant in his dock statement denied the allegations but admitted visiting the victim’s house and chatting with her and said that the contradictions in the prosecution's evidence undermined the case against him.

Grounds of Appeal

6. The grounds of appeal pleaded are;

1. that the learned trial judge has failed to properly evaluate the probability of the prosecution' case;

2. that the learned trial judge has failed to evaluate the inter se and per se contradictions in the prosecution's case;

3. that the learned trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence;

4. that the learned trial judge erroneously believed the evidence of the investigation officer (PW-05); and

5. that the learned trial judge misdirected himself as regards to the evaluation of the defence case.

Consideration of the grounds of appeal

7. The 1^st - 4^th grounds of appeal relate to credibility and the evaluation of the evidence and will be considered together. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the trial judge who finally determined this matter succeeded to his predecessor after the close of the prosecution’s case. Except for the defence evidence and the cross-examination of the investigating officer PW-05, the trial judge did not have the opportunity to see the demeanour and deportment of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the trial judge himself was limited to the other t