ATTORNEY GENERAL

Vs.

NIHAL

SUPREME COURT
WANASUNDERA, J.
ALUWIHARE, J.
DE ABREW, J.
SC/APPEAL/154/2010
SC/SPL/LA /100/2010
CA/125/08
HC GALLE 2136
OCTOBER 26, 2015

Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, section 54A(d)-Evidence Ordinance, sections 114(f), 134-Drug related offence- Corroboration-Evidence given by trained police officers

The respondent had been indicted before the High Court under section 54A(d) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance for possession of 9.91 grams of heroin. The High Court convicted the respondent and the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal set aside the Judgment of the High Court and acquitted the accused, on the basis that in drug related offences where police officers are the key witnesses, the evidence of only one of the main witnesses who was involved in the detection is not sufficient to secure a conviction. The Court of Appeal held that requiring corroboration of the evidence of such witnesses is the only way the defence would have the opportunity to challenge the veracity or the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and thus contradict the prosecution version. The Attorney- General moved the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Held:

1. No adverse inference could be drawn from the prosecution's failure to call the other police officer who was involved in the detection to testify since it could be explained by considerations of efficacy.

2. Corroboration is not mandatory to establish a charge based on a police detection if the evidence, after probing closely, is acceptable to the judge.

3. There is neither a legal requirement nor a rule of law for the prosecution to provide the defence with an opportunity to contradict witnesses.

Cases referred to:

1. Manoj Bahu v. State of Maharastra 1993 (3) Born. CR 673
2. The State v. Bhikambhai Kalidas 1985 (2) GLR 745
3. The State v. Raghunath Baxi 1985 Gij LR (SC)
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. G.K Gosh 1983 2 Crimes (SC)
5. Shyam Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar 1993 Cr. LJ 772
6. State of Gujarat v. Raghunath AIR 1985 SC 1092
7. Banshidar Maharana v. State of Bihar 1993 1 Pat LJR 31
8. Lila Krishnana v. Mani Ram Godara AIR 1985 SC 1073
9. Karamajith Singh v. The State (Delhi Admin) AIR 2003 SC 1311
10. State of Maharastra v. Gopal Amrut (1989) 3 Born CR 464
11. Dharman v. NC Sirinivasan AIR 1990 Mad.14 (1989)
12. Ajith Singh v, State of Punjab 1982 Cr. LJ 522
13. Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras SIR SC 614
14. King v. Chalo Singho 42 NLR 269
15. Walimunige John v. The State 76 NLR 488
16. Mulluwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 198
17. R v. Arnough (1973) 21 WIR CA
18. Lyris Silva v. Karunaratne 48 NLR 31

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Jayantha Jayasuriya, P.C., Senior A.S.G., with Ayesha Jinasena, Senior D.S.G., for the Complainant-Respondent-Appellant.

Rienzie Arsecularatne, P.C., with Udara Muhandiramge, Namal Karunaratne, Nimeshika Patabandige and Thejitha Koralage for the Accused-Appellant-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

January 3, 2019

ALUWIHARE, J.

In this matter Special Leave to Appeal was granted on the questions of law raised in paragraph 8 of the petition dated 14.06.2010. The questions are reproduced verbatim below:

A. Is the judgment of the Court of Appeal contrary to law and to the weight of the evidence led in the case?

B. Did the Court of Appeal unnecessarily burden the prosecution by holding that "in drug related offences where raids are conducted by trained officers, it is fair to require for corroboration?"

C. Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that "where the raids are conducted by trained officers, corroboration is required as it is only then that the defence would have the opportunity to challenge the veracity or the credibility of the prosecution witnesses to contradict the version of the