IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRETIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of section 331 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No- 15 of 1979, read with Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal No: Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CA/HCC/112/2020 COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Tangalle 01. Amarathunga Arachchige Dayananda Case No: THC/185/2019 alias Madduma Mahaththaya

02. Geegana Gamage Chamara Nilanga ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Geegana Gamage Chamara Nilanga

2nd ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Charuka Dharmasiri with Nuwan Beligahawatte for the Accused Appellant : Shaminda Wickrama, S.C. for the Respondent Argued on : 02-06-2022 Written Submissions : 21-01-2022 (By the Accused-Appellant)

: 01-06-2022 (By the Respondent)

Decided on : 18-07-2022 Sampath B Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal by the 2^nd accused appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) on being aggrieved by the sentence imposed upon him by the learned High Court Judge of Tangalle.

The appellant, along with the 1^st accused named in the indictment, was indicted before the High Court of Tangalle for causing grievous injuries to one Indika Sandaruwan on 22^nd December 2016 and thereby committing the offence of attempted murder, punishable in terms of Section 300 read with Section 32 of the Penal Code.

Both the 1^st accused as well as the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge when the indictment was read out to them on 23^rd September 2020.

On behalf of the appellant, submissions have been made in mitigation of the sentence and a compensation in a sum of Rs. 75000/- has been offered to the injured. It has been urged that he is a married person of 39 years of age, having 3 children at that time and he is also a serving Army soldier attached to the Engineering Regiment of the Sri Lanka Army. Under the circumstances, it has been pleaded for the consideration by the Court for a sentence that does not affect his employment. It has been specifically pleaded that he may be ordered to pay state costs instead of a fine. It appears from the proceedings that the learned State Counsel who prosecuted the matter has not insisted on imposing a jail term on the appellant as well as the first accused. Having considered the fact that the injured, who is the PW-01 named in the indictment, has also expressed his willingness to accept compensation and to conclude the matter, it has been urged the Court to consider these factors and impose a suitable sentence.

In his sentencing order, learned High Court Judge has considered the fact that the appellant and the first accused tendered an unconditional plea and also the fact that the injured, namely, PW-01 named in the indictment, has expressed his wish to obtain compensation, as mitigatory factors.

Accordingly, the appellant and the other accused have been sentenced to 2 years imprisonment which has been suspended for a period of 5 years. In addition, they have been ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 75000/- each to PW-01 as compensation. In addition to the above, the appellant and the 1^st accused have been ordered to pay Rs. 5000/- each as fines. In default, they have been sentenced to one month imprisonment.

It appears from the sentencing order that the submission made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that he is a serving Army soldier and to consider imposing a punishment which would not affect his employment has drawn the attention of the learned High Court Judge. However, he has not been ordered to pay state costs instead of a fine, but a note of his application has been made in the sentencing order.

In the appeal under consideration, the appellant is only challenging the sentence where he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, and seeking this Court’s indulgence to set aside the fine imposed and to consider imposing