IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA SC Appeal No. 159/23 Attorney General, Attorney-General’s Department, SC.SPL.LA.No: SC/SPL/LA/06/23 Hultsdorp, Colombo 12 Court of Appeal No. CA/HCC/55/2022 HC Colombo Case No. 553/18 COMPLAINANT - VS -

Wickramathilake Don Susantha Kumara, No.45, Kala Wewa, Wijithapura, Anuradhapura.

ACCUSED AND BETWEEN Attorney – General Attorney-General’s Department, Hultsdorp, Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT – APPELLANT - VS -

Wickramathilake Don Susantha Kumara No.45, Kala Wewa, Wijithapura, Anuradhapura ACCUSED – RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Attorney – General Attorney-General’s Department, Hultsdorp, Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT – APPELLANT –

PETITIONER – APPELLANT - VS -

Wickramathilake Don Susantha Kumara No.45, Kala Wewa, Wijithapura, Anuradhapura ACCUSED – RESPONDENT –

RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Before : E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J.

A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.

Janak De Silva, J.

Counsel : Ayesha Jinasena, SASG with M. Azeez, SC for the Complainant –

Appellant – Appellant.

Mohan Weerakoon, PC with Sandamali Peiris for the Accused –

Respondent – Respondent.

Argued on : 27.02.2024 Decided on : 13.06.2025 E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J.

This Appeal has been made by the Complainant – Appellant – Petitioner – Appellant, the Attorney General of the Republic of Sri Lanka (Hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Prosecution” or “Appellant”), against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/HCC/55/2022. Accused – Respondent – Respondent – Respondent, Wickramathilake Don Susantha Kumara, is an expatriate workman in the Republic of Korea deported to Sri Lanka on 26.07.2017 (Hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Accused”). He was the accused in High Court Colombo Case No. 553/18 where he was accused of committing sexual harassment to one Jeong Eun-Hui, an 18-year-old female undergraduate at the University of Keimyung, (Hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Jeong” or “Victim of the accident”) by removing her underwear, which is an offence under Section 345 of the Penal Code as amended by Act No.

22 of 1995.

The learned High Court Judge in High Court of Colombo Case No. 553/18, by his Order dated 10.12.2021, held that the Prosecution had not established a case for the Accused to answer and thereby, acquitted the Accused without calling for his defence. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal for which the above Case No. CA/HCC/55/2022 was given. The learned Court of Appeal Judges, whilst not approving some of the observations made by the learned High Court Judge and also not agreeing with some of findings in the Order of the learned High Court Judge, agreed with the conclusion of the learned High Court Judge to acquit the Accused without calling his defence. Thus, the Appellant filed the Special Leave to Appeal Application No. SC.SPL.LA.No: SC/SPL/LA/06/23 in this Court and when it was supported, this Court granted leave on the following questions of law found under paragraph 45(a), (b) and (c) of the Petition dated 05.01.2023 - vide minutes dated

24.10.2023.

a) Did the Courts below err in law by their failure to correctly appreciate and apply Section 200(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979?

b) Did the Courts below err in law by their failure to evaluate the available evidence in light of the admissions of the Respondent to draw a reasonable inference on application of the principles in relation to the evaluation of the circumstantial evidence?

c) Did the Courts below err in law by their failure to appreciate that an explanation was clearly warranted from the Respondent in light of the highly incriminating items of evidence available against the Respondent [on the basis of DNA evidence] on proper application of Section 200(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

Further, as per minutes dated 27.02.2024, another question of law was allowed:

e. Whether the learned High Court Judge was correct in law since the main ingredient namely, the absence of consent is