IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant SC APPEAL NO: SC/APPEAL/139/2019 COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO: CA/266/2017 HCCA NO: WP/HCCA/NEG/11/2018 Vs.

Chandana Sri Lal Gurusinghe Accused AND BETWEEN Chandana Sri Lal Gurusinghe Accused-Appellant Vs.

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

Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

Complainant-Respondent-

Appellant Vs.

Chandana Sri Lal Gurusinghe Accused-Appellant-Respondent OIC, Yakkala Police Station.

Complainant SC APPEAL NO: SC/APPEAL/2/2022 HCCA NO: WP/HCCA/GPH/AP/32/2019 MC GAMPAHA NO: 61021/18 Vs.

Hettiarachchilage Wasantha Rathna, No. 120, Dhambuwa Watta, Yakkala. Accused AND BETWEEN Hettiarachchilage Wasantha Rathna, No. 120, Dhambuwa Watta, Yakkala.

Accused-Appellant Vs.

1. OIC, Yakkala Police Station. 2. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

Complainant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Hettiarachchilage Wasantha Rathna, No. 120, Dhambuwa Watta, Yakkala.

Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs.

1. OIC, Yakkala Police Station. 2. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

Complainant-Respondent-

Respondents Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant SC SPL LA NO: SC/SPL/LA/267/2018 COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO: CA/13/2016 HCCA NO: CP/HCCA/KANDY/12/2001 Vs.

Rajapakse Gedara Nandasena alias Kirikolla Accused AND NOW Rajapakse Gedara Nandasena alias Kirikolla Accused-Appellant Vs.

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

Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Rajapakse Gedara Nandasena alias Kirikolla.

Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs.

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

Complainant-Respondent-

Respondent Before: Hon. Justice Murdu N.B. Fernando, P.C.

Hon. Justice Kumudini Wickremasinghe Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena Counsel: Azard Navavi, Senior D.S.G. for the Complainant-

Respondent-Appellant in SC/APPEAL/139/2019, Complainant-Respondent-Respondent in SC/APPEAL/2/2022 and SC/SPL/LA/267/2018.

Dr. Ranjith Fernando for the Accused-Appellant-

Respondent in SC/APPEAL/139/2019.

Kamal Suneth Perera for the Accused-Appellant-Appellant in SC/APPEAL/2/2022.

Amila Palliyage for the Accused-Appellant-Petitioner in SC/SPL/LA/267/2018. Argued on: 12.12.2023 Decided on: 05.04.2024 Samayawardhena, J.

Background The appellant in SC/APPEAL/139/2019, Chandana Sri Lal Gurusinghe, was indicted before the High Court of Negombo for murder. Evidence of five prosecuting witnesses was led before two High Court Judges. Evidence of one witness was led before the third High Court Judge. After the prosecution case was closed, the appellant made a dock statement. This was followed by closing submissions from learned counsel for both parties. The third High Court Judge delivered the judgment convicting the accused of the offence. On appeal, learned counsel for the appellant took up the position for the first time that the judgment was delivered by the third High Court Judge without any “entry of adoption of proceedings” and therefore, it vitiates the conviction. The Court of Appeal accepted that argument and set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered trial de novo without going into the merits of the appeal. The Attorney General appealed against this judgment.

There were several appeals/leave to appeal applications pending before this Court where this point (presence of an entry of adoption of proceedings) had been raised. Together with SC/APPEAL/139/2019, another appeal namely, SC/APPEAL/2/2022 was argued. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner in SC/SPL/LA/267/2018 agreed to abide by the judgment in SC/APPEAL/139/2019.

In SC/APPEAL/139/2019, this Court granted leave to appeal on two questions of law:

(a) Does a Court of first instance require the fact of adopting evidence by the succeeding judge to be recorded in order to comp