IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the Matter of an appeal made in terms of Article 331(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Complainant Court of Appeal Case No:

CA/HCC/323/2019 VS.

HC of Colombo Case No: Mathakadeera Arachchige Manjula HC 7262/14 Kumara No. X/481,Rajaguru, Subhuthi Road,Wellawatta.

Accused AND NOW BETWEEN Mathakadeera Arachchige Manjula Kumara No. X/481,Rajaguru, Subhuthi Road,Wellawatta.

Accused-Appellant Vs.

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Complainant-Respondent Before: Menaka Wijesundera, J.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Counsel: Neranjan Jayasinghe with Harshana Ananda for the Accused Appellant Azard Navavi, DSG for the State Written 03.07.2020 (by the Accused Appellant)

Submissions: 30.07.2021 (by the Respondent)

On Argued On : 02.03.2023 Decided On : 03.04.2023 ******************** B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

This is an appeal by the Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Accused”) on being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence imposed by the learned High Court Judge of Colombo.

The Accused was indicted before the High Court of Colombo for having in his possession 2.11 grams of Diacetylmorphine, commonly known as Heroin, and trafficking the said quantity of Heroin on 07^th May 2013, which are offences punishable under the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act No. 13 of 1984.

The Prosecution led evidence of eight witnesses including the government analyst and closed the case for the Prosecution. The Accused made a dock statement and led the evidence of one witness. The learned High Court Judge of Colombo, in his judgment, found the Accused guilty on both counts. Accordingly, the Accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Being aggrieved by said judgment this appeal was preferred by the Accused.

The following grounds of appeal were urged by the learned Counsel for the Accused in the course of his oral and written submissions:

1. The learned trial Judge had failed to consider the vital contradictions of the Prosecution witnesses.

2. The learned trial judge had wrongly rejected the dock statement and the evidence of Defence witness.

3. The learned trial judge has been biased towards the Prosecution and has abused Defence witnesses.

When this matter was argued before us on 02.03.2023, the learned Counsel for the Defence informed us that the Accused would not be pursuing the third ground of appeal.

Therefore, it is the first two grounds of appeal that we will address. Facts in brief, as per evidence led by the Prosecution, are as follows.

The witness SI Nawarathna (PW1), attached to Dehiwala Police Station, had been contacted by the Officer in Charge (OIC) of Dehiwala Police Station on 7^th May 2013 at around 13.20 while he was on patrol duty, pertaining to information regarding an individual in possession of Heroin. It should be noted that at this point he had previously arrested a person for possession of Heroin at 12.10. Upon receiving the call, he proceeded to the Police Station and handed over the suspect and the production to the reserve. He then met with the four Army intelligence officers and ascertained information about the individual in possession of drugs, residing at No. 481 Rajaguru Sri Shubodhi Road, Wellawatta. Following this, PW1 went to the house in question in a Police three-wheeler with PC 1568 Bandara (PW2), PC 7248 Prasad (PW3), PC 82459 Kumara (PW4), and the Army Officers who showed the place. At the house, they searched a person, believing that person to be the Accused, and found a parcel covered in pink cellophane paper in his right trouser pocket.

As stated by PW1, (On page 63 of the Brief – proceedings dated 20/10/2020)

“ⷁᮅ - මහත්මයා, ඔබ කිව්වා අංක 481 කියන නිවසට ගිය බව?

උ - එහහමයි.

ⷁᮅ - ගිහිල්ලා හමාකද කහල්?

උ - සව් ාමීනි, ඒ නිවසට ගිහිල්ලා නීවැසියන්ට කතා කරලා ඊට පස්හස ඒ නිවස ඇතුහල පුද්ගලහයක් හිටියා.

හතාරතුරට අනුව ඒ පුද්ගලයා සැකකරු බවට සැක හිතිලා පරික