YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J.

Background

1. In this matter, the Appellant seeks to impugn Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 9th November 2018 founded upon the following question of law in respect of which this Court had been pleased previously to grant Special Leave to Appeal.

“Have their Lordships of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in fact and / or in law in not evaluating the evidence to check whether there had been a sudden fight between the Petitioner and the Deceased even when there was reference to a previous fight between them?”

It is noted that this question of law had been raised in addition to sixteen (16) other questions of law contained in the Accused – Appellant – Petitioner’s (the present Appellant’s) Petition to this Court dated 18th December 2018. Special Leave to Appeal had not been granted in respect of those questions of law, as those questions of law were totally irrelevant and unnecessary, as they did not genuinely arise out of the impugned judgment of the Court of Appeal.

2. Court notes that, legal counsel who draft and settle Petitions to this Court seeking Special Leave to Appeal should desist from formulating questions of law, merely for the purpose of doing so. Questions of law must be drafted in good faith, diligently, upon an objective consideration of matters genuinely arising out of the judgment of the Court of Appeal and supported by the evidence presented at the trial (where relevant), and only if raising such questions are in the genuine interests of justice. Petitions seeking Special Leave to Appeal should not be presented merely for the purpose of satisfying the client or for the purpose of delaying the unavoidable final outcome of the judicial process.

3. Clouding this Court with unnecessary and unwarranted Petitions seeking Special Leave to Appeal against judgments of the Court of Appeal is unprofessional, unethical and contrary to the interests of the administration of justice. Protecting the interests of the administration of justice and public interests, is far more paramount and important than the immediate interests of the respective clients of Attorneys-at-Law. If this advice to Attorneys-at- Law is not adhered to in good faith, this Court will have to in the near future consider imposing appropriate sanctions that may even affect the interests of the relevant Attorneys-at-Law.

4. In this matter, the Honourable Attorney General had indicted the Accused - Appellant – Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) for having on 5th January 2011 committed the murder of one Kandasamy Ithayan in Thirunelveli, situated in the District of Jaffna. The trial was conducted before a Judge of the High Court sitting without a jury, and following trial, the Appellant was found ‘guilty’ of the charge against him, and therefor was convicted and sentenced to ‘death’.

5. The Appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal. Following hearing of the Appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the High Court and dismissed the Appeal. This Appeal stems from that Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Evidence for the Prosecution

6. The Appellant is the brother-in-law of the deceased. A certain degree of animosity had existed between the two, since the Appellant believed that his sister (who had been married to the deceased) had been murdered by the deceased in 2007. This was notwithstanding the cause of her death declared by the authorities being ‘suicide’.

7. The prosecution did not present the testimony of any witness who had directly seen the Appellant attacking the deceased. Nevertheless, two witnesses provided testimony on behalf of the prosecution regarding two key attendant circumstances relating to the incident.

8. The main witness who testified for the prosecution was Easwary Somasundaram, a tenant of a house located in the compound inside which the house the deceased lived in was situated. Her testimony was that, on the day of the