IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Weheragedara Ranjith Sumangala, No. 137/2, Beliaththawila, SC (FR) Application No.107/2011 Kindelpitiya, Millewa.

PETITIONER vs.

Bandara, Police Officer, Police Station, Mirihana.

1^nd RESPONDENT Inspector Bhathiya Jayasinghe, Officer-in-Charge – Emergency Unit, Police Station, Mirihana.

2^nd RESPONDENT Egodawele, Chief Inspector, Head Quarters’ Inspector, Police Station, Mirihana.

3rd RESPONDENT Ajith Wanasundara, No. 255, Malagala, Padukka.

4^th RESPONDENT M.W.D. Tennakone, Superintendent of Police, Nugegoda Division, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nugegoda.

5^th RESPONDENT Mahinda Balasuriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01.

6^th RESPONDENT Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12.

7^th RESPONDENT BEFORE : S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J COUNSEL:

Viran Corea with Sarita de Fonseka and Thilini Vidanagamage for the Petitioner.

Sandamal Rajapakshe with Laknath Seneviratne for the 1^st, 2^nd, and 4^th Respondents.

Nalin Ladduwahetti, PC with Kavithri Ubeysekara instructed by Ms. Lilanthi De Silva for the 3^rd Respondent.

Induni Punchihewa, SC for the 5^th, 6^th and 7^th Respondents.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Written submissions on behalf of the Petitioner on 21^st March 2012.

Written submissions on behalf of the 1^st, 2^nd, and 4^th Respondents on 19^th November

2013.

Written submissions of the Attorney-General on 26^th September 2023.

ARGUED ON : 27^th September 2023 DECIDED ON : 14^th December 2023 S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

The Petitioner, namely Weheragedara Ranjith Sumangala (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the Petitioner”), filed this application on 28^th March 2011 against the 1^st to 6^th Respondents (hereinafter sometimes jointly referred to as “Respondents”) seeking relief in respect of the alleged infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed by and under the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Accordingly, on 26^th April 2011, when the case was called for support, State Counsel representing the Respondents pleaded for time to be granted in order to expeditiously obtain instructions regarding the injuries purportedly sustained by the Petitioner. Thereafter, as the Respondents have not filed limited objections, on 30^th May 2011, the Court granted leave to proceed for the alleged violation of Articles 11, 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution in the manner and circumstances hereinafter described.

FACTUAL MATRIX As stated by the 1^st, 2^nd, and 4^th Respondents in their Statement of Objections dated 6^th December 2011, the facts and circumstances of the instant case take place in the course of an investigation under the direction and instructions of the 5^th Respondent, founded on a complaint by an unknown party concerning several thefts which occurred in the Moragahahena-Padduka area during the period preceding the events of this case. As stated by the Respondents, the Petitioner was arrested on 17^th December 2010 on the ‘reasonable suspicion’ that he was part of a thieving gang connected to these thefts. However, upon the perusal of the evidence presented to this Court by both parties, there appear to be several inconsistencies with the Respondent’s narration of the incidents of this case, which I will address in the course of this judgment. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I will first consider in brief the facts as narrated by both the Petitioner and the Respondent separately as stated in the Petition and Statement of Objections, respectively.

Facts as stated by the Petitioner The Petitioner, who was at one time a soldier in the Sri Lankan Army, was discharged from military service on or about 7^th September 2009, and at the time of this application was employed as a tinsmith and earned his living by