SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 438


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal made under 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:
CA/HCC/0208/2018 Hettiarachchige Hiruni Alas High Court of Colombo Case No: HC/7261/2014 Accused-Appellant vs.
The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo-12 Complainant-Respondent BEFORE : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.
P. Kumararatnam, J.
COUNSEL : Gayan Perera with Prabha Perera and Panchali Ekanayake for the Appellant.
Janaka Bandara, DSG for the Respondent.
ARGUED ON : 09/06/2022 DECIDED ON : 02/08/2022 *******************

Advocates:
Gayan Perera with Prabha Perera and Panchali Ekanayake for the Appellant.
Janaka Bandara, DSG for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The above-named Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was indicted by the Attorney General in the High Court of Colombo under Sections 54(A) (b) and 54(A) (d) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act No. 13 of 1984 for Trafficking and Possession of 3.15 grams of Heroin (diacetylmorphine) on 20th January 2011.

After trial, the Appellant was found guilty on both counts and the Learned High Court Judge of Colombo has imposed life imprisonment on the both counts on 11/07/2018.

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

The Appellant has intimated through the Prison Authority that she wants to be present in this Court in person for the hearing. Before the commencement of the argument, when this Court inquired from the Appellant via Zoom Platform regarding her earlier request, the Appellant had given her consent to argue this matter in her absence due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Hence, argument was taken up in her absence but was connected vis Zoom platform from prison.

On behalf of the Appellant the following Grounds of Appeal are raised.

1. The evidence against the Appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable grounds.

2. The Government Analyst Report was not properly marked at the trial.

3. The qualifications and expertise of the expert witness not proved.

4. The actual quantity of Heroin stated in the Government Analyst Report has not been proved.

Background of the case.

In this case the raid was conducted upon a specific information received by PW2.The raid was headed by PW1with team of police officers from the Borella Police Station. All had been named as witnesses in the indictment including the Government Analyst. The prosecution had called only PW1and closed the case after marking the Government Analyst Report as X.

When the defence was called, the Appellant made a dock statement and closed the case.

On 20/01/2011 CI/Anuruddha Bandaranayake attached to the Borella Police Station had received information through PW2 about the trafficking of Heroin by a lady called Hettiarachchige Hiruni Alas. According to PW2 his informant had revealed that the Appellant would show up near the Magazine Prison in a three-wheeler with registration number 203- 8200. Acting on that information PW1 had arranged a team comprising 06 officers attached to Borella Police Station and left the police station at 06:11 hours. Before the departure, all the officers who had been selected for the raid were fully searched to confirm that the said officers were not carrying any substance with them by PW1. The team had left the police station in a van bearing No. 61-7062.

As per the information they left the police and went towards Dematagoda and turned towards Borella at the railway crossing Dematagoda. The vehicle was turned left and stopped at Seelavali Lane in front of a house No.9/11/1.Adjusent to Seevali Lane Magazine Prison wall is situated. The above-mentioned three-wheeler had come there at about 11:25 hours. The three-wheeler had come from the 2nd Lane and attempted to turn to Seevali Lane when it was confronted by PW1 and PW2. Then the said three-wheeler was stopped and checked the persons travelling in the vehicle. The Appellant was seated in the rear seat and found a Tennis Ball was in the hands of the Appellant which confirmed the information received by PW2 regarding that the Heroin going to smuggle into the prison by using a Tennis Ball. When PW1 took the Tennis Ball in to his custody, he had felt unusual weight and when he observed the ball had found the cover of the ball had been freshly pasted. When he removed the cover of the ball, the ball was gone into two separate pieces. Further, two small parcels were packed in the two pieces of the ball and the parcels contained some brown coloured substance.

As it reacted for Heroin the Appellant was arrested immediately. The three- wheel driver was neither checked nor arr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top