IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA.

In the matter of an appeal from the Judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of Colombo in the Western Province dated 20.11.2013.

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

Complainant Vs.

S.C. Appeal No. 168/2018 S.C./SPL/LA No.192/2017 C.A. Case No. 71-71/2016 HC Case No.93/2010

1. Punchi Hewage Jagath Roshan alias Jagath.

2. Punchi Hewage Rasika Hasan alias Babu.

3. Sudirukku Hannadige Anil Prasanna aliasTikira

4. Punchi Hewage Samantha alias Mahathun.

Accused AND Punchi Hewage Jagath Roshan alias Jagath.

1st Accused-Appellant Punchi Hewage Samantha alias Mahathun.

4th Accused-Appellant Vs.

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

Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Punchi Hewage Samantha alias Mahathun.

4^th Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs.

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

Complainant-Respondent-

Respondent BEFORE : MURDU N.B. FERNANDO, PC, CJ.

YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC,J.

ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

COUNSEL : Darshana Kuruppu with Buddhika Thilakaratne and Sahan S. Weerasinghe for the 4^th Accused-

Appellant-Appellant Hiranjan Peiris SDSG for the Complainant-

Respondent-Respondent ARGUED ON : 06th June, 2023 DECIDED ON : 25th July, 2025 ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

The Attorney General presented an indictment to the High Court holden at Matara, alleging that the four accused named therein have committed the murder of one Punam Chiristombuge Chandralal on or about 05.07.2007 at Polathumodara. The accused appellant- appellant in the instant appeal was the 4th accused named in the said indictment and shall accordingly be referred to hereinafter in this judgment as the “4th accused”. The trial of the four accused, upon their own selection proceeded without a jury. At its conclusion, the High Court found the 1st and 4th accused guilty for the offence of murder, while entering verdicts of acquittals in respect of the 2nd and 3rd accused. The reason for the trial Court’s decision to acquit the 2nd and 3rd accused was that it entertained reasonable doubt whether these two accused have shared the common murderous intention with which the 1st and 4th accused acted on. The trial Court concluded that the 1st and 4th accused committed the murder, when they attacked the deceased with that intention.

The 1st and 4th accused have preferred appeals to the Court of Appeal (CA 71-72/2016), against their conviction for murder and the consequential imposition of death sentence. The Court of Appeal, in delivering its judgment, now being impugned by these proceedings, had partly allowed the appeal of the 1st accused. The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction for murder and substituted same with a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellate Court has thereupon proceeded to impose a ten-year term of imprisonment on the 1st accused for his complicity in the death of the deceased.

The appeal of the 4th accused however was dismissed after affirming the conviction for murder entered against him. On 29.07.2020, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was corrected with the insertion of “[T]he

4th Accused-Appellant’s conviction under [Section] 296 is affirmed”.

The 4th accused thereupon moved this Court, seeking special leave to appeal against the said judgment and invited this Court to have it set aside. This Court, by its order dated 26.10.2018, granted special leave to appeal on the following questions of law:

a. has the Court of Appeal erred in failing to evaluate the evidence in the case in its totality and the failure to appreciate the same and on an impartial and objective evaluation of the evidence, there was clearly, at the very least, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the 4th accused ?

b. has the Court of Appeal erred in law by affirming the conviction of the 4th accused for murder while convicting the 1st accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the basis of a sudden fight?

c. has the Cou