Case Reference/File No

CA/HCC/0268/2019

Case Name

W M Aruna Shantha Mendis v. The Attorney General

Court

(Supreme Court/ Court of Appeal/High Court/)

Court of Appeal

Date of judgement

24-01-2022

Judges

K Priyantha Fernando, J. (P./C.A.)

Sampath B Abayakoon, J.

Parties

Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

COMPLAINANT

Vs.

W M Aruna Shantha Mendis

ACCUSED

AND NOW BETWEEN

W M Aruna Shantha Mendis

ACCUSED-APPELLANT

Vs.

The Attorney General

Keywords

Murder and Attempt to Murder

Head note

In the matter of an Appeal in terms of section 331 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No- 15 of 1979, read with Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Brief facts

This is an appeal by the accused appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) on being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of him by the learned High Court judge of Panadura.

The appellant was indicted before the High Court of Panadura for committing the murder of his wife Chandi Priyanthika Peiris, on 18th May 2009, an offence punishable in terms of section 296 of the Penal Code and also attempted murder of his daughter Chathushi Mendis, by pushing her to the fire that killed his wife, an offence punishable in terms of section 300 of the Penal Code. After trial without a jury, the appellant was found guilty as charged by the judgment dated 11-10-2019 and sentenced accordingly.

According to the mother of the deceased (PW-06), the marriage between the appellant and her daughter was a turbulent one from the very beginning. There had been a previous divorce action between the parties, which had been subsequently settled. At the time of the incident, they were living in a rented house and still they had frequent marital problems.

On the day of the incident the daughter who came to the house of PW-06 informed of her fears to her life. However, later in the day, she left with the husband and the child to the house where they live. Because of what she was told, PW-06 also followed them and had waited with the house owner, who was living adjacent to the rented house till about 9pm and left as there were no issues. Subsequently, at about 11 pm. she received the news that her daughter has received burn injuries and had been taken to the Panadura hospital.

While being so taken, the injured is said to have made her first dying declaration to the mother that it was the appellant who poured petrol on her and set her on fire. During the cross examination, the mother of the deceased had admitted that there was an earlier attempt by the deceased to commit suicide due to the problems she had with the appellant. She has also failed to mention about the dying deceleration when she made her statement to the Police. On the day of the incident the daughter who came to the house of PW-06 informed of her fears to her life. However, later in the day, she left with the husband and the child to the house where they live. Because of what she was told, PW-06 also followed them and had waited with the house owner, who was living adjacent to the rented house till about 9pm and left as there were no issues. Subsequently, at about 11 pm. she received the news that her daughter has received burn injuries and had been taken to the Panadura hospital. injured is said to have made her first dying declaration to the mother that it was the appellant who poured petrol on her and set her on fire. During the cross examination, the mother of the deceased had admitted that there was an earlier attempt by the deceased to commit suicide due to the problems she had with the appellant. She has also failed to mention about the dying deceleration when she made her statement to the Police. The injured had succumbed to her injuries on the 29th of May 2009 made her second dying declaration in writing, that it was her husband who caused the burn injuries to her.

Judicial Precedence

It is trite law that in a criminal trial the accused has to prove nothing, and it is sufficient for him to give a reasonable explanation as to the evidence against him and or to create a reasonable doubt of the evidence. An accused person is entitled to be acquitted of the charges against him in such a situation. It was held in the case of Pantis Vs. The Attorney General (1998) 2 SLR 148 that; “As the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and no such duty is cast on the accused and it’s Page 13 of 13 sufficient for the accused to give an explanation which satisfies the Court or at least is sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

For the reasons adduced as before, Judges of the view that the appellant has created a reasonable doubt as to his guilt of the charges preferred against him and it is unsafe to allow the conviction and the sentence to stand. Therefore, allowing the appeal, Judge set aside the conviction and the sentence and acquit the appellant of the charges.

Legislation Title

Areas

Reasonable doubt of the evidence