IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal from the order and the sentence of the High Court of Colombo dated 13^th January 2020 made in terms of Section 331(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code Act No. 15 of 1979.

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant CA Case No: CA/HCC/01/2020 HC of Colombo Case No:

HC 17/2018 Vs.

Muniyandi Upul Chaminda Accused AND NOW BETWEEN Muniyandi Upul Chaminda Accused-Appellant Vs.

Hon. Attorney General, Attorney Generals’ Department, Colombo 12 Respondent Before: Menaka Wijesundera, J.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Counsel: Anuja Premaratna, PC with Imasha Senadeera for the Accused-

Appellant Sudharshana De Silva, DSG for the Respondent Written 05.08.2020 and 07.07.2023 (by the Accused-Appellant)

Submissions: 12.01.2022(by the Respondent)

On Argued On: 13.06.2023 Decided On: 08.08.2023 ***********

Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Accused Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Accused) was convicted under Section 54A(d) and 54A(b) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act No. 13 of 1984 for being in possession and trafficking 13.23 g of Pure Diacetylmorphine (heroin) on the 13^th of January 2020 at the High Court of Colombo.

The Prosecution introduced evidence from fourteen witnesses, marking productions P1 to P10, before concluding their presentation. The Accused submitted a dock statement, and his mistress testified on his behalf. After the completion of the trial, the Learned High Court Judge pronounced the Accused guilty of both charges, sentencing him to death for each offense.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the Accused preferred this appeal to this Court.

The Following are the Grounds of Appeal set out in the written submission:

1. The learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the discrepancies in the production chain in favour of the Accused-Appellant.

2. The Learned High Court Judge has failed to consider and properly evaluate vital inter partes contradictions.

3. The Learned High Court Judge has erred in considering the probability of the case of the Prosecution.

4. The Learned High Court Judge has failed to consider and grant due weightage to the consistency of the defence of the Accused.

5. The Learned High Court Judge has erred in refusing to Act upon the defence version and rejecting in on a wrong and erroneous basis.

The Facts and circumstances are that:

According to PW1, Bandara Basnayaka, Officer in Charge of Crimes at the Maligawatta Police station, he received information at 8:15 pm on August 22, 2016. The information detailed an individual dressed in a blue shirt and trousers with black balloon pockets, wearing a gold chain, a gold bracelet, and a tattoo on his right arm above the elbow. This individual was expected to reach a house at No.6 Kettaramma Temple Rd, Malligawatta, carrying a parcel of heroin. He would arrive in a three-wheeler at the Babapulla bridge at Kettarama.

PW1 assigned a team of police officers to leave at 8:30 pm in a private van belonging to a friend of his and traveled to Kettarama. PW1 noted that the Kettarama temple was 450 meters away and described his route. They parked at the back gate of the Kettarama temple and waited. During the trial, he produced the road map used for this operation (marked as evidence P1). After waiting in the van for 20 minutes, PW1 saw a person matching the description from the information arriving at the bridge. Accompanied by S.I Sudarshana (PW2) and P.S Ratnayaka (PW3), they approached the Accused and conducted a search.

During the search, PW1 detected a sizable lump near the upper region of the Accused’s crotch. Upon lifting his shirt and investigating further, he discovered a package positioned at the lower section of his abdomen, tucked into the edge of the Accused’s underpants.

PW1 clarified that this encounter took place near the Babapulla Bridge’s lamp post, ensuring the suspect was clearly visible under ample lighting