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:

CA/HCC /0264/2017 High Court of Panadura Case No. HC/3368/2016 Kodithuwakku Arachchige Premila Saranga alias Henegama Rathnasiri ACCUSED-APPELLANT vs.

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

P. Kumararatnam, J.

COUNSEL : Neranjan Jayasinghe with Harshana Ananda and P.D.K. Katugampola for the Appellant Janaka Bandara SSC for the Respondent. ARGUED ON : 08/02/2022 DECIDED ON : 22/03/2022 ***************************

JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The above-named Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was indicted in the High Court of Panadura under Section 296 of the Penal Code for committing the murder of Dona Sunethra Priyadharshani Kodikara on or about 25^th May 2010.

The trial commenced before the High Court Judge of Panadura as the Appellant had opted for a non-jury trial. After the conclusion of the prosecution case, the learned High Court Judge had called for the defence and the Appellant had made a dock statement and closed his case. After considering the evidence presented by both parties, the learned High Court Judge had convicted the Appellant under section 296 of Penal code and sentenced him to death on 10/08/2017.

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

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant informed this court that the Appellant has given consent to argue this matter in his absence due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Also, at the time of argument the Appellant was connected via Zoom from prison.

Background of the Case According to the evidence led in the trial, the deceased was expecting to marry the Appellant after a long-term love affair. Initially he was a Buddhist Priest but had given up the robe some time before the incident.

According to PW2 the mother of the deceased, the deceased is an educated woman and was working for Sri Lanka Telecom at the time of her demise. Around 8.45 a.m. on the day of the incident i.e.,25/05/2010 she had told her mother that she was going with her fiancØ to buy shoes for him for their wedding. She had further said that her fiancØ had asked her to come to Homagama and from there they were to travel together to Colombo. By this time, they had already bought the wedding rings and prepared the wedding dress. In the afternoon around 2.30 p.m. the Appellant had come home crying and told the mother that the deceased was not to be found and suggested that they go to the police and lodge a complaint. He also speculated that the deceased may have been killed by someone. At that time, she had sensed the odour of alcohol emanating from the Appellant. He had left the place after worshiping the mother of the deceased.

In the evening of 25/05/2010 PW4 the police officer had received information about an unidentified naked dead body of a woman which was floating in the Nachchimale lake and he reached the place around 7.00 p.m. According to him the water level was about 4 feet and the height of the deceased was 5 feet and 1 inch.

As nobody came forward to claim the dead body, the police sought the assistance of the public by publishing the photograph of the deceased in the newspaper. After about a month, on 24/06/2010 PW1 the brother of the deceased had gone to the Kalubowila Hospital morgue and identified the dead body of his sister.

On 28/10/2010 the Appellant was arrested and his statement was recorded. Upon his statement and acting under Section 27(1) of the Evidence Ordinance a pair of slippers, a blouse, a lady underwear, a brassiere which were alleged to have been belonging to the deceased were recovered under a bamboo bush close to the place where the body of the deceased was found. When the defense was called the Appellant had made a brief dock st