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 from the judgment dated 14^th of February 2012, of the Court of Appeal in case No. CA Appeal No. 237/2007 under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

SC Appeal No. 97/2012 The Honourable Attorney General, SC (SPL) LA No. 61/2012 Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12.

CA No. 237/2007 HC No. 300/2001 Vs.

Parana Liyanage Chaminda ACCUSED And Between Parana Liyanage Chaminda ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

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

RESPONDENT And Now Between Parana Liyanage Chaminda (Presently at the Welikada Prison, Colombo)

ACCUSED-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs.

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

RESPONDENT-RESPONDNET-RESPONDENT Before: Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J Shiran Gooneratne J Arjuna Obeyesekere J Counsel: Saliya Pieris, PC with Susil Wanigapura for the Accused-Appellant-Petitioner-

Appellant.

V. Hettige, SDSG for the Attorney General.

Written Submissions: Written submissions of the Accused-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant

09.07.2012.

Written submissions of the Respondent-Respondent 24.08.2012.

Argued on: 04.05.2022 Decided on: 13.09.2023 JUDGMENT Aluwihare PC. J, (1) The Accused-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Accused’] was indicted along with another before the High Court for the murder of one Kodagodage Sunil Jayaweera [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’] on or about 9th May 1998.

(2) The trial before the High Court had proceeded only against the Accused as the Attorney-General withdrew the indictment against the other accused who was indicted along with the Accused-Appellant in the present case.

(3) At the conclusion of the trial, the learned High Court judge found the Accused guilty as indicted, and accordingly the death sentence was imposed on him. The Accused, aggrieved by the said judgement, moved by way of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. By its judgement dated 14.02.2012, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the Accused.

(4) The instant appeal arises out of the said judgement of the Court of Appeal. This court granted special leave to appeal on the questions of law which are referred to in sub-paragraphs (b), (e), (h), (j) and (k) of Paragraph 11 of the Petition of the Accused-Appellant which are reproduced below;

(b) Whether their Lordships in the Court of Appeal have failed to consider that in rejecting the evidence of the defence and accepting the version of the prosecution witness, the learned High Court judge had required of the defence the same burden of proof as required by the prosecution?

(e) Whether their Lordships in the Court of Appeal and the learned High Court Judge have failed to fairly and properly evaluate the Defence evidence?

(h) Whether their Lordships in the Court of Appeal and the learned High Court Judge have failed to consider the inconsistencies of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses?

(J) Whether their Lordships in the Court of Appeal and the learned High Court judge have failed to consider the evidence of the existence of a sudden fight?

(k) Whether in all the circumstances of the case the petitioner should have been acquitted of the count of murder or have been convicted of the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

(5) Before the legal issues raised are addressed, it would be pertinent to lay down the factual background to the incident that resulted in the death of the deceased.

(6) In the course of the evidence led at the trial, it transpired that the deceased, was living as a tenant, with his family in a small wattle and daub house belonging to the father of the Accused.

(7) Sometime before the incident, the accused had got married and he had wanted the deceased to vacate the premises as the accused intended to