IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal against the Judgment and Sentences of the High Court of Putlam in terms of section 331(1) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with section 11 with the Provincial High Court (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 and also with Article 154P of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant Vs Court of Appeal Case No:

CA/HCC/307/24 Nilanthilage Amila Sudarshana Silva High Court of Putlam Case No: Accused HC/77/2021 AND NOW BETWEEN Nilanthilage Amila Sudarshana Silva Accused - Appellant Vs Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Before : P. Kumararatnam, J.

Pradeep Hettiarachchi, J.

Counsel : Punarjith D. Karunasekera with Kifsiya Banu for the Accused-

Appellant.

Hiranjan Peiris ASG for the State.

Argued on : 07.08.2025 Decided on : 26.09.2025 Pradeep Hettiarachchi, J

Judgment

Introduction

1. The Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) was indicted before the High Court of Puttlam for following charges;

(a) On or about 28-02-2016, within the jurisdiction of this Court, at Mundel, the Appellant by having sexual intercourse with a girl below sixteen years of age, namely Rajapakshe Pathiranalage Gimhani Hansika, who was the daughter of his wife by another father and who stands towards him in some enumerated degrees of relationship as described in section 364A (1), committed the offence of rape on said Rajapakshe Pathiranalage Gimhani Hansika which is an offence punishable under section 364 (3) of the Penal Code as amended by the Act No. 22 of 1995 (b) At the time and the place mentioned in the above charge and at the same transaction, the Appellant, by using the Appellant’s genitals on any orifice or part of the body of a girl below 16 years namely, Rajapakshe Pathiranalage Gimhani Hansika committed the offence of grave sexual abuse, which is an offence punishable under section 365B (2)(b) of the Penal Code as amended by the Act No. 22 of 1996, 29 of 1998 and 16 of

2006.

(c) During the period of 29-02-2016 to 18-03-2016, within the jurisdiction of this Court, at Mundel, the Appellant by having sexual intercourse with a girl below sixteen years of age, namely Rajapakshe Pathiranalage Gimhani Hansika, who was the daughter of his wife by another father and who stands towards him in some enumerated degrees of relationship as described in section 364A (1), committed the offence of rape on aid Rajapakshe Pathiranalage Gimhani Hansika which is an offence punishable under section 364 (3) of the Penal Code as amended by the Act No. 22 of 1995

2. When the charges were read out to the Appellant, he pleaded not guilty of the charges.

Accordingly, the matter had been taken up for trial before the High Court Judge without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned High Court Judge convicted the Appellant for the 3^rd charge, after reducing it to a lesser offence under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code (as amended) and imposed a sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment. Additionally, the Appellant was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and serve a sentence of three months’ imprisonment in the event of default. Also, he was ordered to pay the victim a sum of Rs. 200,000/- as compensation and a default sentence of one-year simple imprisonment.

3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and the Sentencing Order dated 27-11-2024, the Appellant has preferred the instant Appeal.

Brief Facts of the Case

4. As per the testimony of PW1, she had been living in her mother’s house with her mother, step-father and her sister at the time this incident of sexual abuse took place. While PW1 was sleeping in her room, her mother’s second husband, the Appellant in the present case, had come to her room and touched her breasts. Thereafter, he has undressed her and committed some act on her female organ using his penis. However, no eviden