IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Republic.

Korawage Ranjith alias “Shantha”, Masdeniya,Pathawita, Beralapanathara.

PETITIONER -Vs

1. Rukman Kumara, Officer-in-

Charge, The Police Station, Urubokka. 2. Sudusingha, Police Driver The Police Station, Urubokka. FR Application No: 338/2017

3. Mahesh Widanapathirana, Nawarathnawila Tea Factory, Moragala,Kirulapone.

4. J.A.Janaka Witharana, Bengamuwa, Urubokka.

5. Pujith Jayasundara,Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters,Colombo 01 6. Hon.Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

K. KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J ACHALA WENAGAPPULI, J COUNSEL : Mr. Pulasthi Hewamanna with Ms. Githmi Wijenarayana for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shantha Jayawardena with Hiranya Damunupola for the 1^st Respondent.

Ms. Ganga Wakishta Arachchi, DSG, for the 5^th and 6^th Respondents .

ARGUED ON : 29.04.2024 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : Petitioners on 28.10.2021 and Further written Submissions on 30.05.2024.

Respondents on 16.08.2021 and Further Written Submissions on 06.06.2024. DECIDED ON : 06.03.2025 K. KUMUDINI WICREMASINGHE, J.

The Petitioner filed the instant application alleging that his Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution were infringed by the 1^st to 6^th Respondents. After considering the said application, the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed on 05.02.2018 for the alleged infringement of Article 11 and Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The Petitioner stated that the incident concerning this application occured on 11.09.2016 around 4.40 p.m., when the Petitioner went with one Chandika Samantha, in Chandika’s motor bicycle to find one Vitharana Gamage Gamini who had borrowed the Petitioner’s motor bicycle to visit a friend. Having met Gamini at Katapola Urubokka Street, in Kirulapone Junction of Beralapanathara they stopped nearby and parked next to a shop on the said street. The Petitioner further stated that Gamini parked a few feet away from where Chandika had parked. Thereafter, the Petitioner mounted his motorcycle and both the Petitioner and Chandika waited for Gamini who went to the nearby shop. For disclosure the Petitioner stated that the motorcycles were parked beside the pavement of the Urubokka Street which is a two way lane approximately 12 feet wide which can sufficiently accommodate the passage of two vehicles without any inconvenience to any party.

Photographic evidence explaining the above situations have been marked as P1(a)

and P1(b).

The Petitioner stated that shortly afterwards, the 3^rd Respondent (whose identity the Petitioner was unaware of at the time) arrived in a small white coloured van and stopped behind Chandika's motorcycle. The 3^rd Respondent shouted at Chandika who was on his motorcycle to move his bike so that the van could proceed. The Petitioner stated that the following altercation ensued afterwards;

a) Chandika explained to the 3^rd Respondent that there was sufficient space for him to move through without disturbing him;

b) The 3^rd Respondent threatened Chandika and refused to proceed unless he moved his motorcycle;

c) Thereafter, the 3^rd Respondent confronted Chandika and insisted him to move his motorcycle;

d) The Petitioner stated that having noticed that a congregation of people had gathered around Chandika, the Petitioner arrived at the scene; in the ensuing commotion anticipating that the 3^rd Respondent was going to attack Chandika, the Petitioner intervened and shoved the 3^rd Respondent away which pacified any further confrontation;

e) Thereafter, whilst returning to his motorcycle, he heard a sound of glass shattering and turned around to find the 3^rd Respondent with a stone in his hand and the windscreen of the 3^rd Respondent's vehicle was shattered.

The Petitioner stated that the 3^rd Respondent walked away leaving his vehicle behind and threatened the Petitioner, Chandika