LOKUGALAPPATHTHIGE CYRIL AND TWO OTHERS

VS.

HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUPREME COURT
B.P.ALUWIHARE J.
UPALY ABEYRATHNE J.
ANIL GOONERATNE J.
SC(SPL) LA 272/2013
CA (CRIMINAL) APPEAL No. 182/2003
05.08.2015

Strict interpretation of Supreme Court rules- Rules of the Supreme Court-Rule No. 3, 6 and 10 of 1990- Section 296 Penal Code- Section 297 of Penal Code- Special leave to Appeal- Aggressor- Self defence.

This is a special leave to appeal application from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 18.09.2013 dismissing the Appeal, learned Additional Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection based on non compliance with rules of the Supreme Court, on the date this application was supported. Very briefly the objection relates to -

a) Application does not disclose a plain and concise statements of facts.

b) When allegations of facts cannot be verified by deference to the judgment, an affidavit to be filed to support allegation (rule 6)

c) Non disclosure of any reasonable cause of Appeal, (rule 10)

This was a murder case. All accused pleaded not guilty in the High Court. Learned High Court Judge found the accused not guilty of murder, but found them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in terms of section 297 of the Penal Code. 1st Accused Petitioner sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and fined Rs.7500/=. 2nd to 3rd Accused Appellants sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fined Rs. 3000/=.

HELD:

1. I wish to observe that there is an absence of the description of the incident itself in a concise manner. On a plain reading of the petition it is not possible to ascertain as to how the incident took place and its background. Attention of this court on the evidence relied upon by the defence had not been highlighted and pleaded. The relevant portions of evidence relied upon by the Accused party to demonstrate the defence of self defence is not contained in the body of the petition. This position may have to be ascertained by a perusal of the judgment of the Court of Appeal and proceedings at the trial court. As such on a plain reading of the petition it is obvious that there is an absence of a plain and concise statement of facts to draw the attention of this court to consider the question of granting leave. There is absolutely no material referred to in the petition to ascertain whether the deceased party was the aggressor.

2. In a brief manner a fair and full disclosure of all material facts would be essential and should be pleaded in applications to Superior Courts by parties aggrieved by orders and judgments of the lower courts. In the same manner a 'plain and concise statements of all facts and material would be mandatory for special leave to Appeal Applications to the Supreme Court. A material fact contained in a document which is not expressly stated in the body of the petition would amount to noncompliance of the rules even if the documents itself is filed along with the petition. There is a necessity to give a strict interpretation to Supreme Court Rules.

APPLICATION for Special Leave to appeal.

1. Ediriwickrema and another Vs. Ratnasiri Bar Association Law journal 2013 Vol. XX.

2. AG Vs. Bandaranayake and others (reported in the same journal)

L.M.K. Arulananthan P.C. with Devika Anagoda and Anoj Hettiarachchi for the Accused Appellant- Petitioners

Dappula de Livera P.C, A.S.G. for the Complainant- Respondent-Respondent

Cur.adv.vult.

October 19,2016

ANIL GOONERATNE J.

This is a Special Leave to Appeal application from the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on or about 18.09.2013, dismissing the appeal of the Petitioners. When this application was to be supported on 19.3.2014, learned Additional Solicitor General informed court that a preliminary objection need to be raised based on non-compliance of the rules of the Supreme Court, more particularly rule Nos. 3,6 and 10 of Supreme Court rules of 1990. However on 1