2021 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 237
COURT OF APPEAL
Hon. K Priyantha Fernando J (P/CA)
Kiribandage Rathnapala – Appellant
Versus
Hon. Attorney General – Respondent
CA. HCC/162/2019
| H B I T C A IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA n the matter of an Appeal under Section 331 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, read with Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. he Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka omplainant Court of Appeal Case No. HCC/162/2019 V. Kiribandage Rathnapala igh Court of Anuradhapura Case No. Accused HC/89/2012 AND NOW BETWEEN Kiribandage Rathnapala ccused - Appellant V. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant - Respondent EFORE : K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J. (P/CA) SAMPATH B. ABAYAKOON, J. 1 |
| A W F J COUNSEL : Nihara Randeniya for the Accused – Appellant. Shanil Kularatne, SDSG for the Respondent. RGUED ON : 04.10.2021 RITTEN SUBMISSIONS ILED ON : 13.01.2021 by the Accused Appellant. 05.05.2021 by the Respondent. UDGMENT ON : 29.10.2021 ************** K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J.(P/CA) 1. The accused appellant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) was indicted in the High Court of Anuradhapura for one count of kidnapping from lawful guardianship, punishable in terms of section 354 of the Penal Code and one count of murder, punishable in terms of section 296 of the Penal Code. After trial the learned High Court Judge convicted the appellant on both counts and was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- for the first count of kidnapping and sentenced the appellant to death for the 2nd count of murder. Being aggrieved by the above conviction and the sentence, the appellant preferred the instant appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant urged the following grounds of appeal; I. That the learned High Court Judge failed to consider the well settled principles of law relating to a case entirely based on circumstantial evidence. II. That the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant based only on suspicious circumstances and speculations. III. That the learned trial Judge has failed to analyze credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the entirety of the prosecution case. IV. That the learned trial Judge failed to consider that the evidence, important contradictions and omissions of the prosecution witnesses. 2 |
| V. That the learned High Court Judge failed to appreciate the defence case and reject the same in the wrong premise. 2. Facts in brief elicited as per the witnesses for the prosecution are that the deceased child who was about 6 years old has been living with her mother Wasantha (PW1). Her father, husband of Wasantha has been in prison serving a term as an absentee from the army. Weeraratne Bandara (PW3) has been running a carpentry shop in the close vicinity of Wasantha’s house. On the 4th of June 2009 Wasantha has gone to Weeraratne Banda’s house in the evening with the child. Ajith Bandara Herath (PW4) who has been the paramour of Wasantha also has come to PW3’s house. The appellant who also lived in the vicinity had come to PW3’s house to check about the cabinet he had wanted the carpenter PW3 to make for him. 3. The three men, PW3, PW4 and the appellant had consumed alcohol. As the child fell asleep on the chair, Wasantha has taken the child and had left her at her house. Whilst having dinner at PW3’s house, the appellant has gone missing. Upon remembering that the child was sleeping at home, Wasantha had gone home to look for the child to see that the deceased child was also missing. When she alarmed the neighbours, they have started looking for the |
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
