IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under section 14 of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978 read with the provisions of section 11 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No.19 of 1990 and section 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 19 of 1990 and section 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.

Court of Appeal Case No: 398/2019 HC of Colombo Case No: 6640/2013 The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant V.

Henpitage Dharma Sri Pushpakumara Accused AND NOW BETWEEN Henpitage Dharma Sri Pushpakumara Accused-Appellant V.

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

Complainant-Respondent Before: Menaka Wijesundera,J.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Counsel: Samantha Premachandra for the Accused-Appellants Dileepa Peiris, SDSG ,for the Respondent Written 29.06.2021 (by the Accused-Appellant)

Submissions On: 02.06.2021(by the Respondent)

Argued On: 29.11.2023 Decided On: 13.12.2023 ************

Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Accused Appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Accused) was indicted at the High Court of Colombo for the following charges, i. Section 54A (d) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. –

Possession of 2.60g grams of Heroin (Diacetyl Morphine), ii. Section 54A (b) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. –

Trafficking 2.60g grams of Heroin (Diacetyl Morphine), iii. Section 54A (d) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance–

Possession of less than 1g of morphine, iv. Section 54A (b) of the Poisons, Opium, and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. –

Trafficking of less than 1g of morphine, The prosecution led evidence of seven witnesses and marked seven documents and closed the case for the Prosecution. The Accused Appellant made a Statement from the Dock and closed his case.

After the trial, the Accused was convicted of all 4 counts. For the 1^st and 2^nd counts, the Accused was sentenced to Life Imprisonment, and for the 3^rd and 4^th counts sentence of 2 years each to run concurrently was imposed. Being aggrieved with the said conviction and the sentence the Accused had preferred this appeal and submitted the following grounds of appeal.

a) That the learned trial Judge failed to observe that the inward journey of the productions was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and in any event, there is reasonable doubt cast on the production chain emanating from the evidence adduced before the Court and that the appellant must thereby get the benefit of the doubt, b) That the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies reflected in the prosecution evidence, c) That the learned trial Judge misdirected himself on the law relating to burden of proof and also failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, d) That the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the evidence led at the trial was insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence and the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, e) That the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the duty of discharging the burden of proof is on the prosecution, f) That the learned trial Judge misdirected himself by imposing an unnecessary burden on the defence in a case of bare denial, g) That the learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to properly consider and evaluate the evidence place before him in totality and that convicting the appellant is explicitly contrary to the law and against the weight of the evidence led in this case, h) That the learned trial Judge failed to consider the evidence placed before Court by the defence in this case, i) That the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed in its duty to call key witnesses which would deprive the right of appellant to have a fair trial, j) That the learned trial Judge failed to c