JUDGMENT

THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

1. The background to this case arises from the conviction of the Appellant, one Rupassara Pedige Shamal Indunil Ruapassara (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”), in the Magistrate Court of Pugoda by judgment dated 28 June 2013 on two counts: first, the offence of housebreaking and theft punishable under sections 443 and 396 of the Penal Code and, second, retention of stolen property punishable under section 394 of the Penal Code.

2. The Appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Gampaha, and by judgment th dated 24 November 2014, the learned High Court Judge acquitted the Appellant of st nd the 1 count but upheld the conviction of the Appellant on the 2 count. Subsequently, th by petition dated 5 January 2015, the Appellant prayed for special leave to appeal th before this Court. On 26 February 2016, this Court granted special leave to appeal on the following question of law set forth in Paragraph 16(d) of the petition:

“Did [the] Judgments of the Learned Provincial High Court Judge of Gampaha and the Additional Magistrate of Purged erred [sic] in law by failing to take into consideration that the alleged statement made by the Appellant to the Police, marked පැ4 is dated 24.06.2010 which is long before the Appellant’s arrest?”

3. The factual matrix underlying the Appellant’s preliminary convictions pronounced by the learned Additional Magistrate commences with a complaint received by the Kiridiwela Police Station from one E. M. H. Kumara Dissanayake (PW01), the virtual- complainant, on 04th December 2009 which subsequently led to the Appellant’s arrest by an Officer-in-Charge attached to the Kirindiwela Police Station, IP Lionel Senanayake (PW05) on 04 July 2010.

4. A statement, Marked පැ 4. by the Appellant was recorded by a Police Constable, subsequent to which certain jewellery items, and later, a mobile phone, were discovered in the Appellant’s residence.

5. The Appellant contests the authenticity of පැ4 on two grounds. First, the Appellant categorically denies having made such a statement. Second, the Appellant seeks to cast doubt on the legitimacy of පැ4, citing a discrepancy in dates: the statement is dated 24 ^th th June 2010, whereas the Appellant’s arrest occurred on 4 July 2010. This temporal gap, the Appellant argues, raises a question as to why the arrest did not follow promptly after the recording of such a statement.

6. Before analysing the merits of the Appellant’s case, it is pertinent to trace the trial, the evidence led and the findings of, firstly, the learned Additional Magistrate and, subsequently, those of the learned High Court Judge.

7. In the trial before the Magistrate Court, the Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the following witnesses were called on behalf of the prosecution: the Complainant (PW01), wife of PW01, IP Pathmina Illangakoon (PW02), AAN Kamal Adhikari (PW03) Investigating Officer IP Shaminda Perera (PW04), and the Arresting Officer (PW05).

8. PW05, in giving evidence, categorically stated the following: a complaint was received from PW01 in respect of a housebreaking and theft in December 2009, and subsequent th to investigations, the Appellant was arrested on 4 July 2010. He further stated that, the Appellant’s statement was recorded by one P.C. 39184 Sirisena. Subsequent to the recording of such statement, certain jewellery items and eventually a mobile phone were found in the possession of the Appellant, more specifically in his residence, and produced to the respective police station.

9. Thereafter, the Appellant was identified in the dock, the stolen items, too were identified, and the relevant portion of the Appellant’s statement, admissible under s27 of the Evidence Ordinance, was marked as “පැ4”.

10. It is evident upon perusal of the cross-examination of PW05, that the dates pertaining to the arrest, recording of the statement, or the authenticity of such statement, were not questioned or challenged by the defence. In fact, the Appell