KUMARA

Vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

COURT OF APPEAL
WICKREMASINGHE, J.
DE SILVA, J.
CA/PHC/APN/64/2015
HC MONARAGALA 22/2010
JULY 10, 2018

Revision-Penal Code as amended by Act No. 22 of 1995, section 364(1)-Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979, sections 110(4), 167, 333(1), 359, 414(1)-Evidence Ordinance, section 32(2)  Rape-Delay in making the first complaint-Minor contradictions Corroboration-Perusal of Information Book extracts when writing the judgment-Rejection of dock statement

The petitioner was indicted in the High Court for committing rape. After conviction, he was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 and was further directed to pay Rs. 100,000 as compensation to the prosecutrix.

The petitioner filed a revision application before the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the High Court Judge had: (i) failed to consider that the prosecutrix had made her first complaint belatedly; (ii) failed to consider a material contradiction with regard to a conversation between the prosecutrix and a witness; (iii) considered uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix contained in the Information· Book extracts when writing