IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal made under Section 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979.

Court of Appeal Case No. The Democratic Socialist Republic of CA/HCC/ 0400/2017 Sri Lanka.

High Court of Gampaha COMPLAINANT Case No. HC/22/2004 Vs

1. Mohotti Mudiyanselage Shantha Gunatilaka.

2. Wickrama Arachchilage Dhammika Karunaratne.

ACCUSED AND BETWEEN Wickrama Arachchilage Dhammika Karunaratne.

2^nd ACCUSED-APPELLANT The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo-12 COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT BEFORE : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

P.Kumararatnam,J.

COUNSEL: Sumith Senanayake, P.C. with Madhushani De Soysa, Nirmani Wickramasinghe with Damitha Wickrama Arachchi for the Appellant.

Janaka Bandara, DSG for the Respondent. ARGUED ON : 05/06/2023 DECIDED ON : 08/08/2023 *******************

JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The above-named 1^st Accused was indicted under Section 364(2) (e) of the Penal Code for committing rape on Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Amitha Kumari in the High Court of Gampaha on 25.10.1999 and in the course of the same transaction of third count mentioned below.

In the second count, the 2nd Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was indicted under section 364(2)(e) read with section 102 of the Penal Code for aiding and abetting the 1^st Accused to commit rape on Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Amitha Kumari on 25.10.1999 and in the course of the same transaction mentioned in the 1^st count.

In the third count, the Appellant was indicted under section 308 (A) (2) of the Penal Code as amended for committing an offence of Cruelty on Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Amitha Kumari in the High Court of Gampaha between

03.09.1999 to 25.10.1999.

After the trial, the 1^st Accused was acquitted from 1^st count and the Appellant was acquitted from the 2^nd count.

But for the third count, the Appellant was convicted and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default 02 weeks simple imprisonment was imposed. In addition, the Appellant was ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the victim. In default, 03 months simple imprisonment was imposed.

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

The Learned President’s Counsel for the Appellant informed this court that the Appellant has given consent to argue this matter in her absence. It is further informed that the Appellant is on bail pending appeal.

The Appellant had filed the following grounds of appeal:

1. The Learned High Court Judge has not evaluated the evidence properly.

2. The Learned High Court Judge has failed to follow the maxim Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

3. The Learned High Court Judge had expected some proof from the defence.

4. The Learned High Court Judge has failed to consider grave discrepancies of the prosecution case.

The victim was residing at Inginiyagala in Ampara district before she came to the Appellant’s house at Ranpukunugama, Nittambuwa. The Appellant’s husband who is a relation of the victim had brought her to Ranpokunugama on the promise that she would be sent to school and could enjoy her leisure time by watching television. Her parents had sent her to Ranpokunugama due to poverty. When she came to the Appellant’s house, she had completed

15 years of age. She has four siblings.

IP/Rajapaksha had conducted the inquiry, arrested the Appellant and produced her before the court.

PW2, Dr.Paranamana who had examined the victim stated that he had noted three categories of injuries on the victim’s body. According to him, the first category of injuries had been inflicted by blunt weapon. The second category of injuries had been caused by burning and the third category had been caused by a sharp weapon.

After the closure of the prosecution case, the defence was called and the Appellant had elected to give evidence from the witness box and proceeded and called two witnesses on her behalf.

According