King V. Emanis

 

1940     Present : de Kretser J.

 

THE KING v. EMANIS.

 

64-M. C. Colombo, 33,253.

 

Evidence-Statement by accused to Police Officer-Use of statement to con­tradict accused-Criminal Procedure Code, s. 122 (3). A statement made by an accused person to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation under section 122 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code may be used to contradict him provided the statement is not a confession within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Ordinance.

 

CASE heard before Judge and jury in the Western Circuit.

 

On an objection taken by Counsel for the defence to the production of certain statements made by the accused to the Police.

 

C. S. Barr Kumarakulasingham (with him M. M. Kumarakulasingham), for the accused.

 

H. W. R. Weerasooriya, C.C., for the Crown.

 

Cur. adv. vult

 

August 20, 1940. DE KRETSER J.-

 

Crown Counsel proposes to confront the accused with certain statements made by him to the Sub-Inspector of Police which are contradictory of the statements he has made In this Court. Counsel for the defence states that if all that the Crown Counsel seeks to prove is a complaint made by the accused, then he has no objection, but if Crown Counsel is seeking to prove other statements under section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code then
 

 

he objects to such proof and relies on the case of Baby Nona v. Johanna Perera,1 in which case Mr. Justice Soertsz expressed an opinion, in passing, that the word "witness" in section 122 did not include an accused person who gave evidence on his own behalf.

 

I understand Crown Counsel is not seeking to prove anything in the nature of a confession but is seeking mainly to prove a complaint made by the accused that he was assaulted. Counsel for the defence has already elicited from the Inspector, in spite of a warning from me, that the accused made a complaint that he had been assaulted. The accused in the box has given details of the assault and Crown Counsel seeks to prove that he gave another version in his statement to the Police. The objection therefore will only be a matter of form, for although the statement was made in the course of the investigation it was also a complaint by the accused. The statement by the accused is, as I said before, not a confes­sion and we have authority in the case of King v. Cooray', as to what may or may not be a confession under section 25 of the Evidence Ordinance. In the case of The King v. Graniel Appuhamy', a Divisional Bench had before it the question of the regularity of statements made to the Police being put to an accused person without the statements them­selves being proved. The Divisional Bench accepted the position, apparently .without any controversy, that the statements the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document