1952 Present : Gunasekara J.

RANHAMY, Appellant, and JAYAWARDENA (Police Sergeant),
Respondent

S. C. 1,337-M. C. Hatton, 17,674

Criminal Procedure Code-Section 122 (1) and (3)-Statement to police-Admissibility in evidence-Signature of witness taken-Irregularity-Evidence Ordinance, s. 157.

Section 122 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that any police officer investigating an offence " may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and shall reduce into writing any statement made by the person so examined, but no oath or affirmation shall be administered to any such person, nor shall the statement be signed by such person". The purpose of the express prohibition in regard to taking the signature of a witness is that, otherwise, the witness would have a strong motive for standing by the statement imputed to him in the police records irrespective of the accuracy of the statement that he actually made or of the police officer's note of it.

Although a statement made by a witness to a police officer in the course of an inquiry under section 122 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is admissible either as corroboration of his evidence under section 157 of the Evidence Ordinance or for the purpose of contradicting him, it cannot be led in evidence until after the witness has given the evidence that is to be corroborated or contradicted by the statement to the police.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Hatton.

S. Nadesan, for the accused appellant.

Ananda Pereira, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

396

September 12, 1952. GUNASEKARA J.-

The appellant, Ranhamy, was convicted on charges of voluntarily causing hurt to one Charles Fernando and grievous hurt to one Wilbert de Silva by stabbing them with a knife on the 1st December, 1950, at Logie Estate in Talawakele. At the close of the argument in appeal I set aside the conviction and said that I would give my reasons later.

A man named Kalyanaratna Hemachandra who was tried jointly with the appellant on charges of abetment of the offences alleged against the latter was acquitted by the Magistrate on the ground that the evidence against him was unreliable. This was the evidence of Kalyanaratna's own brother Chandradasa Hemachandra and the two injured men, Charles and Wilbert, each of whom gave direct evidence of instigation. The main ground of appeal was that having rejected the evidence of these three witnesses on this point the Magistrate could not reasonably accept the case against the appellant.

The prosecution arose out of an incident that occurred on the eve of a poll for the election of a member of the local urban council to represent the ward in which the Logie Estate lines were situated. Chandradasa, who belonged to a party headed by one Wickremasooriya, was one of the candidates ; and Kalyanaratna, who was contesting Wickremasooriya himself in another ward, supported Chandradasa's opponent. According to the case for the prosecution, Chandradasa, Charles, Wilbert and two others went to Logie Estate at about 10 p.m. on the day in question to canvass votes. They went there in Chandradasa's car, driven by his chauffeur David, and alighted from it about 50 feet in front of the estate factory. They found the factory lit up and a bon-fire outside, and there was a crowd of some 200 persons between the car and the factory, some of whom wore the emblem of the opposing party, and a smaller number that of their own party. A sub-inspector of police, Nandalochana, was there when they arrived and was seen by Chandradasa in the light of the headlamps of his car as he stepped out of it. At that time, according to Chandradasa, Charles and Wilbert, the crowd was peaceful and orderly and not even noisy, and they walked towards the crowd. Charles was leading, followed by Wilbert at a distance of about 15 feet and