[COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL]

1944 Present : Howard C.J., Moseley S.P.J. and Wijeyewardene J.

THE KING v HARAMANISA.

3-M. C., Karunegala, 12,250.

Evidence-Charge of murder-Circumstantial evidence-Erroneous statement of fact in charge to jury-Statement to Police Officer in course of investigator-Oral evidence of statement inadmissible-Purpose for which the statement is used-Criminal Procedure Code, s. 122 (3), Evidence Ordinance, s. 155.

The accused was charged with murder and the evidence against the accused was of a purely circumstantial character. The main circumstances was the fact that finger impressions of the accused were proved to have been discovered on a glass chimney found near the dead body of the deceased.

In his charge to the jury the presiding Judge made an erroneous statement of fact regarding the circumstances in which the accused testified to his having touched the glass chimney.

Held, that the accused had been prejudiced in his defence and that the conviction could not be sustained.

A statement made to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a person-which expr