LALITH RAJAPAKSHE

VS.

 PEIRIS AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
DEEPALI WIJESUNDERA, J,
JAYASURIYA, J.
CA 224/2008
HC NEGOMBO 259/2003
MARCH 11,24,2016
MARCH 30, 2017

Convention Against Torture and other Cruel Inhumane Or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994 - Section 2 Evidence Ordinance - Section 134- Is the evidence of a sole eye witness enough to prove a charge? How many witnesses to be called? Misdirection ?

The accused was charged under Section 2 of Act 22 of 1994. After trial the accused was acquitted - the aggrieved party appealed.

Held:

(1) the JMO testified that there were 10 life threatening injuries on the Petitioner as well as wounds on the feet and soles of the feet - The High Court Judge stated that there were no wounds on the feet - this is a misdirection.

(2) The High Court Judge has stated that the two persons who were at the Petitioner's house were not called as witnesses to corroborate the Petitioner's evidence. These two persons were not listed as witnesses. Therefore calling them as witnesses does not arise. This is a clear misdirection - Section 134 Evidence Ordinance.

(3) The High Court Judge has faile