IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Articles 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Hon. Attorney General, SC APPEAL NO.16/2020 Attorney General’s Department, SC SPL LA No. 68/2017 Colombo 12.

Court of Appeal No. CA 122/2010 COMPLAINANT High Court of Nuwara-Eliya: 11/09.

VS Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Roshan Bandaranayaka, 144/B, School Lane, Kumbalagamuwa, Walapone. ACCUSED AND Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Roshan Bandaranayaka, 144/B, School Lane, Kumbalagamuwa, Walapone.

ACCUSED-APPELLANT VS.

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

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Roshan Bandaranayaka, 144/B, School Lane, Kumbalagamuwa, Walapone.

ACCUSED-APPELLANT -APPELLANT VS.

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

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-

RESPONDENT BEFORE : S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J;, J;

YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J &

MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J.

COUNSEL : Dimuthu Senarath Bandara instructed by Savithri Fernando for the Accused-Appellant-Appellant.

R. Abeysooriya, PC, ASG for the Complainant-Respondent-

Respondent.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Accused-Appellant-Appellant on 9^th November 2010.

Complainant-Respondent-Respondent on 9^th November

2023.

ARGUED ON : 20^th September 2023. DECIDED ON : 13^th December 2023.

S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

The Accused-Appellant-Appellant preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Court of dated 17^th February 2017 and the special leave was granted on 13^th February 2020 on the questions of law set out in paragraphs 12(i), 12(iv) and 12(vii) of the Petition dated 29^th March 2017. On the argument day, the Counsel for the Appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that they would confine their submissions to questions of law no. (i) and (vii) of paragraph 12 of the Petition stated

as follows.

12(i) Did the learned Trial Judge err in law by failure to consider that the items of circumstantial evidence placed before him were not sufficient to prove the prosecution’s case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

12 (vii) Did their Lordships of the Court of Appeal err in law in holding that the Trial Judge was correct in disbelieving and rejecting the dock statement in the light of the prosecution evidence?

I find it pertinent to set out the material facts of the case prior to addressing the question of law before us.

The Accused-Appellant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) to the present appeal, Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Roshan Bandaranayake, was indicted before the High Court of Nuwara Eliya (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) by the Honourable Attorney General on the charge of committing the murder of Wakwella Liyana Arachchige Neela Malani Wakwella on or about 27^th February 2005 an offence punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code.

The said Appellant opted to be tried before the High Court without a jury. After the conclusion of the prosecution case, the Appellant chose to make a dock statement and closed his case. The learned High Court Judge convicted the Appellant on the indictment and sentenced him to death. Being dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence, the Appellant had preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal and raised the

following grounds of appeal.

(i) The items of circumstantial evidence are not sufficient to prove the prosecution’s case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) The rejection of dock statement is wrongful and the learned High Court

Judge has failed to correctly apply principles governing the evaluation of a dock statement.

After the conclusion of the arguments, the learned Judges of the Court of Appeal delivered the judgment on 17^th February 2017, dismissing the Appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence of the learned High Court Judge. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellan