IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Hon. Attorney- General, Attorney-General’s Department Colombo 12 SC/Appeal/ 21/ 2021 SC (Spl.) L.A. No 210/2019 CA Case No. 238-239/13 HC Kegalle Case No. 2438/06 COMPLAINANT Vs.

1. Poththegodage Anula Chandralatha

2. Andawalage Nimal Sarath Kumara ACCUSED AND BETWEEN

1. Poththegodage Anula Chandralatha

2. Andawalage Nimal Sarath Kumara ACCUSED-APPELLANTS Vs.

Hon. Attorney- General, Attorney-General’sDepartment Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT- RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Andawalage Nimal Sarath Kumara

2^ndACCUSED APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs.

Hon. Attorney- General, Attorney-General’sDepartment Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Poththegodage Anula Chandralatha

1^ST ACCUSED- APPELLANT- RESPONDENT BEFORE: MURDU N.B. FERNANDO, PC, J.

K.KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J.

MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J.

COUNSEL: Srinath Perera, PC with Miss. Angela and Rahul Jayathillake for the 2^nd Accused- Appellant- Appellant.

Azard Navavi, DSG for the Complainant-Respondent-Respondent.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Written Submissions by the 2nd Accused-

Appellant- Appellant on 29.06.2021 ARGUED ON: 26.05.2022 DECIDED ON: 27.09.2023 K. KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J.

The application for special leave to appeal was preferred by the 2nd Accused Appellant Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 10.05.2014 affirming the convictions and the sentences imposed against the 1^st and 2^nd Accused Appellants and dismissing their Appeal. Aggrieved by which the 2^nd Accused Appellant Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, this Court by order dated 22.02.2021 granted Special leave to appeal on the following questions of law:

1. That the Hon. High Court and the Hon. Judges of the Court of Appeal failed to take into consideration and properly evaluate the items of evidence led on behalf of the parties at the trial.

2. This being a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon. High Court Judge and the Hon. Judges of the court of appeal failed to properly consider and correctly apply the relevant principles applicable to such a case in order to arrive at a decision in the said case.

3. The Hon. High Court Judge and the Hon. Judges of the Court of Appeal failed to evaluate the evidence led against each accused in this case, separately, in arriving at a decision against each such accused.

Two Accused namely, Poththegodage Anula Chandralatha who was the 1st Accused (1^st Accused Appellant Respondent) and Andawalage Nimal Sarath Kumara who was the 2nd Accused (2^nd Accused Appellant Appellant) were indicted in the High Court of Kegalle under section 296 of the Penal Code read with section 32 of the Penal Code, for committing murder of one Ajith Kithsiri Ruwan Kumara. Both Accused, upon the charge in the indictment being read over and explained to them, pleaded not guilty to the said charge. Both Accused opted to try the case without a jury and the trial commenced on 25.11.2013. The prosecution called 7 witnesses and closed its case after marking P1 to P6 as productions. When the defense was called both Accused gave dock statements denying the charge. After the conclusion of the trial, the Learned High Court Judge convicted both the Accused for committing murder as per the indictment and imposed the death sentence as required under section 296 of the Penal Code.

The facts of the case briefly are as follows, As per the evidence given by Prosecution Witness Thilakarathna (PW1), on the date in question the witness had visited the house of the 1st Accused Appellant Respondent around 6:30 pm to consume illicit alcohol (Kasippu). The witness stated that he had seen the deceased who was the husband of the 1st Accused Appellant Respondent lying on a partially built wall in close proximity to the house of the 1st Accused Appellant Respondent. The witness claimed tha