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 against a Judgment of the High Court Gampaha The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka COMPLAINANT Court of Appeal Case No: - CA-HCC-0227-18 High Court of Gampaha Case No: - HC/297/2004 Vs.

01.Liyanage Lalitha Rohan Perera

02.Bope Kankanamalage Shanthi alias Eldeniye Sheela Shanthi ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Bope Kankanamalage Shanthi alias Eldeniye Sheela Shanthi

02nd ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 RESPONDENT Before : - Menaka Wijesundera, J.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Counsel : - Palitha Fernando, P.C. with Neranjan Jayasinghe for the Accused-Appellant.

Dilan Ratnayake, S.D.S.G. for the Respondent.

Written : - 24.06.2019 by the Accused-Appellant.

Submissions on 27.06.2019 by the Respondent.

Argued on : - 07.09.2023 Decided on : - 10.10.2023 Menaka Wijesundera, J.

The instant appeal has been lodged to set aside the judgment dated 17.9.2018 of the High Court of Gampaha.

The accused appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has been indicted in the High Court of Gampaha along with the 1^st accused for, 1) conspiracy to commit murder, against both.

2) murder only against the 1^st accused, 3) aiding and abetÝng to commit murder against the appellant.

The appellant faced the trial but the 1^st accused absconded but at the end of the trial the trial judge convicted the appellant for the 1^st and the 3^rd charges and passed the sentence of death.

The trial judge also convicted the 1st accused for the first charge in his absence.

The appellant being aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence has lodged the instant appeal.

The main ground of appeal raised by the Counsel for the appellant is the involuntariness of the confession made to the Magistrate of Gampaha by the appellant.

According to the evidence of the Magistrate who had given evidence on oath, the date of offence had been on 21^st of October 1999 and facts had been reported on the 22^nd of October 1999 and the same Magistrate has conducted the inquest and the appellant had made a statement as a witness and the Magistrate has ordered further investigations to be conducted against the appellant, and the police had arrested the appellant and had produced her as a suspect on the

23^rd of October.

On this day the appellant had been produced to her quarters and the Magistrate had spoken to her and after she made the request that her confession be recorded the Magistrate had taken her to the shrine room and had told her to engage in religious activities if she wants and then only had she queried her further. The appellant had once more told the Magistrate that she wants to make a confession, but the Magistrate had given her time to think about it and had remanded her till the 29th of October.

But upon a further report facts had been reported again on the 24th of October and on the request of the appellant she had been produced to the Magistrate on the 26^th and the appellant had once again said that she had wanted to make a confession. She had been produced around 11.30 in the morning and when the Magistrate had queried as to why she wants to make a statement she had said that she wants the world to know the truth and that she wants all women not to be deceived by men and fall in to trouble. Thereafter the Magistrate had told her the implications of a confession and had told her to rethink and had given her time till 3.30 in the afternoon.

At 3.30 when the appellant had been produced before the Magistrate, she had told of the same consequences of making a confession and asked her very specifically whether she had been under any influence or threat from anyone in the prison and she had answered in the negative.

Hence the Magistrate had started to record the confession and the Court stenographer had been present inside the chamber other than the appellant and the Magistrat