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/0008/2018 COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Gampaha Ganeachchi Pathirannahalage Lakshman Case No: HC/122/2007 ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Ganeachchi Pathirannahalage Lakshman ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

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

RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Amila Palliyage with Nihara Randeniya and Sewani Udugampola for the Accused Appellant : Azard Navavi, DSG for the Respondent Argued on : 08-12-2022 Written Submissions : 21-11-2018, 04-09-2018 (By the Accused-Appellant)

: 29-01-2019 (By the Respondent)

Decided on : 27-01-2023 Sampath B Abayakoon, J.

The accused appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was indicted before the High Court of Gampaha for committing the offence of murder of one Muthugalpedige Nandana Priyadarshana on 8^th September 2005, an offence punishable in terms of Section 296 of the Penal Code.

After trial without a jury, he was convicted as charged by the learned High Court Judge of Gampaha of his judgement dated 24-01-2018, and he was sentenced to death.

Being aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal.

The Facts in Brief The deceased and PW-01 Lakshman Gunathilake have been close friends for some time. On the date of the incident namely 8^th September 2005, PW-01 has gone to deceased Nandana’s house around 8.00 - 8.15 in the night and both of them have left the house in order to consume toddy. They have left in the motor bicycle owned and ridden by Nandana in order to travel to Hakpitiya area where a person called Sunil sells toddy. While travelling, they have seen three persons walking towards the direction they were travelling about 200 meters in front of them.

According to the witness PW-01, the headlight of the motor bicycle was on and there was a streetlight close by. Apart from the mentioned sources of light, it was the evidence of PW-01 that there was a wedding function going on at a house nearby and it was well lit. The witness has identified the appellant as one of the persons who were walking in front of them. While approaching them, suddenly, a strong torch light has been directed towards them, which blinded the rider, which has resulted in him losing control of the bike. As a result, both the deceased and PW-01 has fallen onto the ground and when this happened, PW- 01 has seen the other two persons who were with the appellant running away from the scene.

The motor bike has fallen on top of PW-01. The deceased Nandana was able to get up while PW-01 was still attempting to remove the motor bike and get up. While this was happening, PW-01 has seen the appellant coming towards the deceased and stabbing him. He has not seen to what part of the body of the deceased the stabbing took place, however, as soon as this happened, the appellant has run away taking the knife used for the stabbing with him. When looking at the deceased, he has seen him with injuries to his chest. Subsequently, the witness has alerted the others and taken the deceased to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Explaining the light condition further, he has stated that the street light was about 50 feet away from the place of the incident, and the earlier-mentioned wedding reception was taking place and the garden of the house was well illuminated. Apart from that, as he has earlier-mentioned, the headlight of the motor bicycle was switched on when this incident happened.

The witness has mentioned that the motive for this attack as the dispute, the deceased had with the appellant over the murder of the brother of the appellant.

Under cross-examination, the witness has admi