IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

1. Kamaldeen Ilham Ahmed (Minor)

2. Hameem Siththi Nihara The 1^st and 2^nd Petitioners of;

128/3, Lechchami Janapadaya, Hatharaliyadda.

PETITIONERS S.C. (F.R.) Application No. 87/2023 Vs.

1. IP Weerakoon, Acting Officer – in – Charge, 2. SI Wedagedara, 3. Officer-in-Charge, The 1^st to 3^rd respondents of;

Police Station, Hatharaliyadda.

4. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01.

5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : Janak De Silva, J.

Menaka Wijesundera, J.

Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

COUNSEL : Pulasthi Hewamanna with Harini Jayawardhana for the Petitioners P.B. Herath for 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents Varunike Hettige, ASG for 4^th and 5^th Respondents WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : By the Petitioner on 09.05.2025 By the 4^th and 5^th Respondents on 04.09.2014 ARGUED ON : 19.05.2025 DECIDED ON : 01.09.2025 Janak De Silva, J.

At all times material to this application, the 1st Petitioner was a minor aged 16 years and 8 months. He was a student at CP/Katu/Dehideniya Muslim Maha Vidyalaya and had just completed the G.C.E. Ordinary Level Examination. The 1st and 2nd Respondents were attached to the Hatharaliyadda Police Station. The 1st Respondent was the Acting OfÏcer- in-Charge. The 3rd Respondent is named as the OfÏcer-in-Charge of the Hatharaliyadda Police Station.

The events leading to this application arose from an alleged theft of jewellery from the house of one Ajmeel, who is the cousin of the 1st Petitioner and lives in a house on the same plot of land as the 1st Petitioner’s house a few meters away. The 1st Petitioner was arrested by the 1st Respondent in relation to this incident and produced before the Galagedera Magistrates Court in Case No. 9068/23. The 1st Petitioner was acquitted after trial.

In this application, the 1st Petitioner is impugning his wrongful arrest, torture and detention by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. Leave to proceed has been granted under Articles

11, 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution.

Ar In Channa Peiris and Others v. Attorney General and Others [(1994) 1 Sri LR 1] it was held that having regard to the nature and gravity of the issue, a high degree of certainty is required before the balance of probability might be said to tilt in favour of a petitioner endeavouring to discharge his burden of proving that he was subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

According to the 1st Petitioner, he was first tortured on 06.08.2022 during interrogation by the 1st Respondent. Upon the 1st Petitioner refusing to confess to the alleged offence, the 1st Respondent struck the soles of his feet several times with a large pole about 1 ½ inches in diameter and one meter long. The 1^st Respondent directed another police o to hold the 1st Petitioner’s legs stretched out during this assault so that the soles of his feet were within easy reach of the pole.

The 1st Petitioner shouted continuously that he did not take the jewellery and pleaded with the 1^st Respondent not to beat him. However, the 1^st Respondent mocked him that the punishment the 1^st Respondent meted out to the 1^st Pe punishment he will get from Allah.

After the assault, the 1st Respondent got the 1st Petitioner to walk about in the room and jump up and down several times so as to inflict more pain.

The 1st Petitioner was tortured for the second time on 08.08.2022. Once again the 1st Respondent got another police ofÏcer to hold the legs of the 1st Petitioner outstretched while he struck the soles in a similar manner to the assault on 06.08.2022.

Later in the same day, a similar assault took place. This was followed by the 1^st Respondent crushing some nai miris on a handkerchief, then mixing it with water and squeezing the nai miris extract into the eye