Revised Case Brief 2022

KDU Moot Court and Debating Society
General Sir John Kotelawala Memorial Moot Court Competition 2022
1|Page
CASE BRIEF
Instructions to Participants at the General Sir John Kotelawala Memorial Moot Court Competition
2022
Disclaimer:
The following indictment, proceedings and judgement are extracted from a case are based on a
case heard before a Trial Court in Sri Lanka.
The Brief includes fictional names, case numbers and dates for the purpose of the KDU Memorial
Moot Court Competition in 2022. Any similarity in such names and other details to real-life
persons, places or dates is unintentional and purely coincidental.
Participants are also informed that the original brief shall not be released to the participants under
any circumstances.
i|Page
Instructions on the Moot:
1. Participants required to formulate their own grounds of appeal based on the contents of the
Brief.
2. Participants may submit clarifications based on the Brief in the manner and before such
deadlines stipulated in the Rules and Regulations of the Competition in 2022 and the Tentative
Timeline.
3. The following Brief contains:
a. The Indictment
b. Evidence of NINE (09) Witnesses.
c. Postmortem Report
d. Judgement of the High Court
ii | P a g e
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri
Lanka
Anuradha Gajasinghe
iii | P a g e
Indictment
In the High Court of Gampaha Judicial Zone
Criminal Case Number

in the High Court HC/G 19/08
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

V
Anuradha Gajasinghe
You are being indicted on the orders of the Attorney General of the Democratic Socialist
Republic of Sri Lanka and the charges contained in the indictment are;
The accused herein committed the murder of Chandrasekera Jayawardena, in Radaawana,

which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, on or about the 18th Day of July 2005, is a
criminal offence punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code.
State Counsel
1|Page
List of Production
1. Police Identity Card
2. A packet of cigarettes
3. A letter
4. A petition
5. A packet of Peanuts
6. A case of an identity card
7. A wallet
8. A pair of slippers
9. Four Carpets
10. A manna knife
11. A sarong
12. A pair of trousers
13. A shirt
14. A handkerchief
15. A portion from the statement of the accused
16. Post Mortem Report
List of Witnesses
1. Nilmini Weerasinghe
2. Kanthi Senanayake
3. Kamal Kariyawasam
4. Nayana Sudharshani Liyanage
5. Surangani Samarasekara
6. Pahamunige Hema Chandani
7. Mahinda Peris
8. Ajith Jayawardana
9. Pradeep Jayawardana
10. Police inspector Rohan Abeykoon
11. Sub Police Inspector Nishantha Senaratne
12. Sub Police Inspector Gamini Perera
2|Page
13. Retired Police Inspector Rajitha Kumarasinghe

14. Police Sargent Lakmal Ranasinghe
15. The Judicial Medical Officer Sarath Wickremaratne.
16. Government Analyst.
GAMPAHA HIGH COURT
Before Honourable Justice Mrs Lakshmi Atapattu
Stenographer: Malishini Perera
Case No: 19/08
Date: 15.07.2018
Appearing on behalf of the State: State Counsel Priyanthi Abeysinghe
Appearing on behalf of the accused: Attorney-at-law Prasanna Soysa along with Attorney-at-
Law Sajith Rupasinghe
The indictment has been read over to the accused again. The accused pleads not guilty to the
charges mentioned in the indictment. Moreover, the accused states that he is willing to try the
case before the high court judge
Accordingly, I now commence the trial.
(High Court Judge)
3|Page
High Court of Gampaha
Before Honorable Justice Lakshmi Atapattu
Stenographer: Ms. Udeni Perera
Date: 15.06.2017
The accused is present.
State counsel Priyanthi Gunawardana appears for the state.
Attorney-at-law Prasanna Soysa together with Sajith Rupasingha appears for the accused.
Evidence on behalf of the prosecution: PW 1
Nilmini Weerasinghe: Age 49, Address: School lane Bandarawatta, Sinhalese/Buddhist Swears.
Evidence in Chief
Q: From where did you form today to give evidence?
A: From Kurunegala.
Q: For how long have you been residing in the Kurunegala address?
A: Since 2015
Q: Where were you residing prior to 2015?
A: Puttalam District
Q: When did you start residing in Puttalam District?
A: Around 2006
Q: Where were you residing prior to 2006?
A: Rathupaswala
Q: Do you remember the address of the place of residence prior to 2006?
4|Page
A: I do not remember the address, only that it was Ratupaswala
Q: Do you know why you are present before the Honourable Court today?
A: Yes
Q: For what?
A: Regarding the loss of my husband.
Q: Do you remember the time period during which your husband passed away?
A: Yes
Q: When was that?
A: 19.07.2005
Q: What did you get to know about on 19.07.2005?
A: On 19.07.2005 I was contacted by my husband’s family.
Q: On 19th, what did your husband’s family say?
A: My husband is at the house, to visit and go.
Q: Husband’s house? What is that house?
A: My husband’s ancestral house.
Q: On 19th July 2005 you received a message to visit your husband’s ancestral house?
A: Yes
Q: When was that? In the morning or at night?
A: In the morning between 7.30 and 8.00
Q: Accordingly, did you go to the ancestral house?
A: Yes
Q: What happened when you went there?
5|Page
A: When I went there, the husband’s mother told me that my husband is lying by the road, and to
go there with Loku Amma (Aunt).
Q: Did you go there and see?
A: Yes
Q: When you went there did you see your husband?
A: Yes
Q: Where was your husband?
A: On the crossroad
Q: What is the crossroad called?
A: Don’t know a name
Q: How was he lying on the crossroad?
A: He was covered with a cloth.
Q: In what condition was your husband in? Was he conscious?
A: He was dead
Q: This was on 19th July 2005?
A: Yes
Q: What was your husband’s name?
A: Chandrasekera Jayawardena
Q: Before seeing him dead on 19.07.2005, when did you last see him alive?
A: On the 18th night between 8.30 and 9.00
Q: You said that you were residing in Rathupaswela on or around that time?
A: Yes
6|Page
Q: Who was residing in the house that you were residing in?
A: Me, my husband, and my son.
Q: Only the three of you?
A: Yes
Q: How old was your son then?
A: About 7 years.
Q: Your husband was last seen on the night of 18th July 2005, between 8.30 and 9.00?
A: Yes
Q: By 18th July 2005, was your husband doing a job?
A: Yes
Q: Where did he work?
A: Iginiyagala Police
Q: What was he doing in Iginiyagala Police Station?
A: He was serving as a Police Constable.
Q: So, how did your husband go to work at Iginiyagala Police? Did he go from home daily, or did
he stay there?
A: He stayed at the police station.
Q: How often does he come home?
A: 3-4 times a month
Q: Accordingly, on 18th July 2005, was your husband working at Iginiyagala Police?
A: He was on leave.
Q: How many days before the 18th, did he come on leave?
7|Page
A: He was on medical leave.
Q: For what reason was he on medical leave?
A: He had sugar issues and headache
Q: So, how many days before 18th did him come on leave?
A: Stayed about a month, he went back twice between the leave and came back
Q: Where did he stay for about a month?
A: In the hospital and also at home.
Q: Accordingly, on the 18th between 8.30 and 9.00, you said you saw your husband?
A: Yes
Q: On the 18th from the morning until 8.30 and 9.00, was your husband at home?
A: He left in the morning informing that he is visiting his sister, and then came back at around 7.30
in the night. Then between 8.30 and 9.00 he left home.
Q: Did he inform you and leave?
A: Yes
Q: Did he inform you where he was going?
A: He went with the intention of taking revenge on a person named Gayan
Q: How do you know that?
A: He told me that and went.
Q: What did he say?
A: That he’s going to take revenge from Gayan.
Q: Do you remember what your husband was wearing when he left home?
A: He went wearing a trouser and a shirt. I do not remember the colour
8|Page
Q: Normally when he leaves from the home at night, does he come back home in the same night?
A: Some days he comes; some days he does not come.
Q: On the days he does not come, where does he stay?
A: His ancestral home
Q: Your husband left home to take revenge on a person called Gayan?
A: Yes
Q: When he was leaving, did he take anything?
A: There was a knife outside the house. I told my son to take it and keep it away. Then I was told,
“There was nothing to take. It is with me.” I did not see it.
Q: Then your husband left from home?
A: Yes
Q: Did he return?
A: No
Q: Afterwards you told that on the 19th at 7.30 in the morning that you got to know your husband
was lying on the road?
A: Yes
Q: Then you went and saw?
A: Yes
Q: Afterwards did you give a statement to the police regarding this?
A: Yes
Q: Did you give evidence at the Inquest?
A: Yes
9|Page
Q: Did you give evidence like this before at the Magistrate Court?
A: Yes
Q: Do you know the person in the Dock?
A: Yes
Witness looks at the Dock
Witness identifies the Accused
Q: Do you know the name of that person?
A: Anuradha Gajasinghe
Q: How do you know the accused?
A: Husband’s elder sister’s son.
Q: What is the name of your husband’s elder sister?
A: Kumudu
Q: Is the accused a son of the person named Kumudu?
A: Yes
Q: Has this accused visited your house before your husband passed away?
A: He has.
Q: For what purpose?
A: He was very friendly with my husband.
Q: There was no close connection between you and the accused?
A: Yes, there was.
Q: What is that close connection?
10 | P a g e
A: My husband was unable perform sexual acts with me. So, my husband told me to have an
intimate relationship with the accused.
Q: What do you mean by there wasn’t such a thing like that?
A: My husband could not have a sexual relationship with me because of his sugar issue. With his
knowledge he told to have a relationship with Gajasinghe every day.
Q: To whom did your husband tell to carry on a relationship with Gajasinghe?
A: To me.
Q: Did you then have a relationship?
A: There was no relationship.
Q: That means you did not have a relationship?
A: No
Q: Did your husband keep telling you this until his death?
A: He did often tell me to have a relationship with the accused.
Q: Did you form a relationship with the accused at any point?
A: Yes.
Q: When was that? Was it around 18.06.2005 when your husband was last seen?
A: Yes
Q: Then how long before this date did you start the relationship with Gajasinghe?
A: About a month before.
Q: Did you get to know at any instance whether your husband was aware of the relationship you
had with the accused?
A: Yes
Q: How did you get to know?
11 | P a g e
A: I told a brother of my husband.
Q: Who is the brother of your husband?
A: Ajith Jayawardena
Q: What did you tell him?
A: Chooti ayya is telling me something like this, ask him to stop.
Q: Who is chooti ayya?
A: My husband.
Q: I asked you whether you started a relationship with the accused?
A: Yes
Q: I am asking whether you got to know that, at any instance, your husband had gotten to know
about the relationship you had with the accused?
A: He had knowledge that there was a relationship and he was watching.
Q: How is that you know that your husband knew the relationship was existing?
A: He was watching.
Q: What was he watching?
A: He told to go sleep in the room and he was watching.
Q: To whom did he tell to go to sleep?
A: He told me to go sleep with Gajasinghe
Q: Who was watching?
A: My husband
Q: How long before the passing away of your husband did this incident take place.
A: A month before.
12 | P a g e
Q: Did that happen only once?
A: Twice
Q: During both times was your husband watching?
A: Yes
Q: Now you said that you told this to a relative of your husband namely Ajith Jayawardena?
A: Yes
Q: Except for Ajith Jayawardena, did you get to know if any other relatives of your husband
were aware of something about you and Gajasinghe?
A: Kamal Kariyawasam also knows.
Q: Who is Kamal Kariyawasam?
A: My husband’s younger sister’s husband.
Q: How do you know that Kamal Kariyawasam knows?
A: He said so.
Q: What did Kamal Kariyawasam say?
A: Kamal Kariyawasam told me that my husband told him that I will be given to Gajasinghe.
Q: How long before the death of your husband did Kamal Kariyawasam say that?
A: I don’t remember.
Q: Was it one day or two days before the death?
A: About two weeks before.
Q: Don’t you remember an exact time period?
A: No
Q: When Kamal Kariyawasam told you that, did you ask your husband about that?
13 | P a g e
A: Yes
Q: Did you get to know from Kamal Kariyawasam when your husband intended to give you over
to the accused?
A: 19th
Q: 19th of which month and which year?
A: 19.07.2005
Q: On that day you came to know that your husband is dead?
A: Yes
Q: Witness, do you know why you have been given over to the accused?
A: My husband said that if an outsider were to take me, they might not look after me, so
Gajasinghe ayya would look after me.
Q: Did you mention this to the accused?
A: Yes
Q: You told Gajasinghe that your husband had said so?
A: Yes
Q: Witness, you said that you didn’t remember exactly what your husband was wearing on the
evening of the 18th?
A: A shirt and a trouser
Q: Do you remember which colour?
A: I don’t remember.
Q: You said that your husband was working for the Police Department?
A: Yes
14 | P a g e
Your honor, we humbly seek your honor’s permission to show s several productions to the
witness.
Q: Witness, take a look at this document and tell if you have seen it before.
A: Yes
Q: What is it?
A: I don’t know what it is. A letter.
Q: I am telling you to observe it carefully and tell if you have read this document before?
A: I have read it.
‘I humbly move to mark this letter as P1’
Q: You said that you have seen the document marked P1?
A: Yes
Q: What is it?
A: Someone had written and sent it to my husband’s home
Q: Husband’s home?
A: Husband’s Radhawane ancestral house. After it was sent, my husband’s brother handed it
over to me
Q: When was that? How long before the death of your husband?
A: I don’t recall that.
Q: Was it before or after you started the relationship with the person in the dock?
A: It was when Gajasinghe was visiting our home.
Q: How long before the death of your husband did he start visiting?
A: My husband’s relatives.
15 | P a g e
Q: I am asking if that letter came before or after Gajasinghe started the relationship with you?
A: Before starting the relationship.
Q: After letter marked P1 was received at husband’s ancestral house, your husband’s brother
came and gave it to you?
A: Yes
Q: Did you show that letter to your husband?
A: Yes
Q: Did you read that letter?
A: Yes
Q: What was said in that letter?
A: I don’t recall.
Q: You mentioned that you had a relationship with the accused?
A: Yes
Q: Have you seen the handwriting of the accused?
A: No
Q: If you see something written by Gajasinghe are you capable of recognizing it?
A: No
Q: You told that the letter marked P1 was given to your husband by you?
A: Yes
Q: You read it?
A: Yes
Q: Did you meet Gajasinghe after seeing your husband dead on 19.07.2005?
16 | P a g e
A: No
Q: You did not meet him at all?
A: No
Q: You said that there was a relationship with Gajasinghe prior to the death of your husband?
A: Yes
Q: Did that relationship exist after the date of death of your husband?
A: No
Q: On 18.07.2005 your husband left the house for the last time?
A: Yes
Q: When was the last time prior to that date that you met Gajasinghe?
A: About a week before
Q: You said you had a relationship with him?
A: Yes
Q: You said he was visiting your home?
A: Yes
Q: How often was he visiting your home?
A: The affair took place in the Radhawane house. My husband then got a house on rent in
Rathupaswala thinking news of the affair might get out in the village. He was visiting that house.
Q: For how long did he come to that house?
A: We were in that house for about a month. During that time he visited about once a week.
Q: After the death of your husband you didn’t meet the accused at any point?
A: No
17 | P a g e
Q: Did he at least talk to you over the phone?
A: He did.
Q: What did he say over the phone?
A: To hand over the key of the Rathupaswela house
Q: Was there any conversation about the death of your husband?
A: No
Q: Did he come to meet you?
A: No
Time: 12.10
Date: 15.06.2017
Further evidence-in-Chief
Q: What is the story regarding the key of the Rathupaswela house?
A: The key of the Rathupaswela house was with the accused
Q: The key of the house you were residing in was with the accused?
A: One was with us, another was with him.
Q: Who gave one of the two keys to Gajasinghe?
A: My husband.
Q: How long after moving into the Rathupaswela house did your husband die?
A: About a month after.
Q: Did the accused call you to give the key to you?
A: Yes
18 | P a g e
Q: Didn’t he come to your house and give the key?
A: He did not.
Q: Where were you when the accused called to give the key?
A: After I had left the house.
Q: Did you come to give the key?
A: No
Cross-examination
Q: Did you know the accused prior to this incidence?
A: Yes
Q: How were the accused and your husband related?
A: My husband’s elder sister’s son.
Q: Did he come to your wedding?
A: Yes
Q: At the time of the death of your husband was the accused married?
A: Yes
Q: What has happened to that marriage?
A: His wife had gone back to her home
Q: You said that you moved to a house in Rathupaswela?
A: Yes
Q: You said that one of the two keys to that house was with you and the other was with the
accused?
19 | P a g e
A: Yes
Q: Who paid the rent of the Rathupaswela house?
A: The accused.
Q: Did your husband know?
A: Yes
Q: How long before the death did you have a sexual relationship with the accused?
A: Twice
Q: How many months before?
A: Within a month.
Q: You gave evidence before the Magistrates Court in 2005, 12 years ago?
A: Yes
Q: Did you have a good memory then?
A: Yes
Q: Did this relationship exist 7 or 8 months prior to the death?
A: It did, with the knowledge of my husband.
Q: Did you testify before the Magistrate Court that your relationship with this person existed for
7 or 8 months?
A: There was a relationship but no sexual contact.
Q: What was the nature of this relationship?
A: Like visiting and engaging in conversations.
Q: Did you read the letter marked P1?
A: Yes
20 | P a g e
Q: Someone had sent the letter marked P1 to the ancestral house of your husband?
A: Yes
Q: The people at the ancestral house gave it to your husband?
A: No, it was given to me
Q: Did you show it to your husband?
A: My husband looked at it
Q: What did he say after looking at it?
A: There is no issue, you keep quiet, doesn’t matter what anyone says. He told me to keep quiet.
Q: Did your husband tell you to be with this person?
A: He told me to be with this person.
Q: Did you make a statement to the police?
A: Yes
Q: The police statement was true?
A: Yes
Q: You told the Police that after looking at the letter your husband said it didn’t matter who sent
letters, just please ayya. He was referring to the accused?
A: Yes, Gajasinghe
Q: You said that there was a relationship with this accused since the day of your marriage?
A: Yes
Q: You said at the Magistrate Court that “There was a relationship with the accused Gajasinghe
with the knowledge of my husband”. What would you say if I suggestd that the relationship
existed 7 or 8 months before the death of your husband?
A: There were no sexual relationships, but we had conversations 7 or 8 months before.
21 | P a g e
Q: What was the nature of the relationship with this accused?
A: We had conversations, my husband was present and there was no sexual relationship.
Q: How long before the death of your husband did you move to Rathupaswela?
A: One and a half months
Q: Before moving to Rathupaswela did you have sexual relationship with this accused?
A: Once in Radhawana house and after moving to Rathupaswela once when my husband was
watching
Q: You are saying that in the Rathupaswela house you had sexual relationship with the accused,
while your husband was watching?
A: Yes
Q: Was your husband drunk when he left the house on 18th night?
A: No.
Q: On the day he left, did he tell that he wants to take revenge on Gayan?
A: Yes
Q: How is Gayan related to this accused?
A: Elder sister’s younger brother’s nephew
Q: The person who was killed by Gayan had a head wound as a result of being hit by a torch?
A: Yes
Q: He went to take revenge for hitting with the torch?
A: Yes
Q: This happened on the 18th?
A: Yes
22 | P a g e
Q: Before that incident did your husband come home on 14th and 16th?
A: I remember that he came, but I don’t remember the date.
Q: Several days before the 18th?
A: Yes
Q: When leaving on the 14th, did your deceased husband tell this accused “ayye I am leaving
again, you come and stay at our house”
A: Yes
Q: 4 days before the occurrence of this incident?
A: Yes
Q: The accused said that “malli I cannot stay like this, I have to go to Matara branch for work”?
A: Yes
Q: So, the accused said that he would be unable to stay during that period while your husband
was away.
A: Yes
End of evidence
Evidence on behalf of the prosecution: PW2
Kanthi Senanayake Age – 49 years. Address 16/A Kirindiwela road, Radawana - Sinhala,
Buddhist gives oath.
Evidence in chief
Q: For how long have you been living at the address you mentioned when you were taking oath?
A: For about 27 years.
Q: Witness, did you know about a person named Chandrasekera Jayawardena?
23 | P a g e
A: I know.
Q: Is that person alive at this moment?
A: He is dead.
Q: Do you remember the date he passed away?
A: On 18.07.2005
Q: On 18.07.2005 were you residing in the aforementioned address?
A: I was living on rent in that house and had a shop by the side of the road.
Q: Who was carrying out the business of that shop?
A: Me and my husband
Q: Normally what was sold in that shop?
A: Food
Q: During which time period were the food items sold after opening the shop?
A: I wake up in the morning and prepare breakfast, then lunch and then in the evening I make
hoppers and at night I prepare food
Q: At what time does the shop close at night?
A: Usually till 10, because it rained that night, the shop closed early.
Q: How do you address that person?
A: As Chandre ayya
Q: You said Chandre ayya died on 18.07.2005?
A: Yes
Q: Did you meet Chandre ayya on 18.07.2005?
A: Only when coming to the shop.
24 | P a g e
Q: So, you met him on that day?
A: He came to the shop and bought meat and cigarettes.
Q: At what time?
A: At about 9.00
Q: You said that it was a rainy day, so the shop was closed early. Did Chandre ayya come before
or after closing the shop?
A: The shop was closed from the front, so he came from the back to buy cigarettes. Two boys
were eating inside the shop.
Q: When he came to buy meat and cigarettes did you engage in any conversation?
A: He didn’t say anything. He asked for meat. Took a cigarette and left.
Q: Did he speak with you when he came to buy those?
A: When giving the bag he said “nangi I am giving Nilmini to Gajasinghe ayya” His eyes were
puffed. He looked like he was drunk. After patting my head he said “nangi you are very
precious” I said that if there is an issue just solve it slowly.
Q: When giving the bag Chandre ayya said “nangi I am giving Nilmini to Gajasinghe”?
A: Yes
Q: Do you know Nilmini? Who is she?
A: She is his wife.
Q: By that time did you know who Gajasinghe is?
A: His house is close to the shop.
Q: How far away from the shop?
A: At a similar distance to the main road.
Q: Is the person named Gajasinghe present today?
25 | P a g e
A: Yes
Q: Can you identify him?
A: Yes
(The witness identifies the accused)
Q: Chandre ayya told you that he is about to give away his wife Nilmini to the accused?
A: Yes
Q: So, after patting your head he said ‘nangi you are very precious’?
A: Yes
Q: Did you speak any further? What did you talk about?
A: Yes. I didn’t ask because I felt scared.
Time: 12.30PM
Date: 15.06.2017
Q: Did he buy cigarettes?
A: Yes
Q: Which cigarette did he buy? Was it a box?
A: I don’t remember. Loose cigarettes.
Q: He took them and went?
A: Yes
Q: Time at around 9.00? To which direction did he go?
A: I don’t remember that much. I didn’t look the direction that he went. I didn’t have much
thought to look at that.
26 | P a g e
Q: When did you get to know about his death?
A: Next day morning
Q: Did you get to know where he had died?
A: An elder sister who came to the shop said “On the road in front of your house someone is
lying”
Q: What is meant by the road in front of your house, you said that you have a shop, is it the road
in front of the shop?
A: No, there is a by-road which leads towards the houses.
Q: Accordingly, did you go and see?
A: Everyone went to watch.
Q: What did you see?
A: We saw him he was lying on the ground facing upwards.
Q: You mentioned that the first accused was a neighbor?
A: Yes.
Q: You said that the house is at the back of the shop?
A: Yes, the shop is on the main road.
Q: The shop is situated facing the main road?
A: Main road
Q: What is the name of the road?
A: Gampaha.
Q: To where does it lead?
A: To Kirindiwela
27 | P a g e
Q: Accordingly, do you use that road to go to the house at the back of the shop?
A: By by-road
Q: The by-road connects to the main road?
A: Yes.
Q: Where is the accused’s house located?
A: Passing our home, by the by-road
Q: A by-road connected to the Kirindiwela road?
A: Yes
Q: The deceased was lying on the by-road?
A: Yes
Q: You said it was near your house?
A: Yes
Q: Your house is at the back of your shop?
A: Yes
Q: How far away from the house was Chandre ayya lying on the ground?
A: Around where the staircase leading to the High Court is situated.
Q: If your house is where you are standing at the moment, where is the house of the accused?
A: Near the main gate.
Q: Accordingly, does the road on which deceased had fallen lead to the house of the accused?
A: No
Q: Does that by-road have to be used or should another road be used?
A: Yes.
28 | P a g e
Q: After seeing the deceased’s body and after investigations had begun, did you give a statement
to the police?
A: The boys who were in the shop gave statements.
Q: Did you give a statement?
A: Yes
Q: Did you give evidence at the inquest?
A: That’s all I know to say.
Q: You said that you sold the deceased some cigarettes, can you remember if they are shown to
you?
A: I don’t remember now. It has been several years since then
Cross-examination
Q: Do you know someone called Gayan?
A: Yes
Q: Did the deceased buy a plate of meat?
A: Yes
Q: After he left did the person named Gayan come to the shop?
A: Yes
Q: After how long?
A: About 10 minutes later.
Q: From which side did he come?
A: From the side of the kitchen, the front was closed.
29 | P a g e
Q: What did Gayan buy?
A: He bought cigarettes
Q: You are saying that from the time the plate of meat was bought and until the time Gayan
came it was about 5 to 10 minutes?
A: Yes
Q: Nearly?
A: Yes
No Re-Examination
End of Evidence
(High Court Judge)
30 | P a g e
Before Honorable Justice Anil Fernando
Stenographer: Ms. Kamini Perera
Case Number: HC/G 19/08
Date: 06.02.2018
State Counsel Nadeesha Kularatne appears for the State.
Attorney-at-law Sajith Rupasinghe appears for the accused.
Parties agreed to adopt all evidence and proceedings heard before my predecessor.
Kamal Kariyawasam, Age 50, Driver, No. 120/1, Kannimahara, Watgurugama, Sinhala
Buddhist, Swears before the court.
Evidence in chief
Q: Who is Chandrasekera Jayawardena?
A: My wife’s second brother.
Q: Is it correct if we say that he is dead now?
A: Correct
Q: How did you address him while Chandrasekera Jayawardena was alive?
A: As Chandre Aiya
Q: Was there another name for him which the villagers used to address him as?
A: They call him Chandre Aiya.
Q: According to your knowledge, was he engaged in any occupation?
31 | P a g e
A: Yes, he was working as a police constable at the police department.
Q: What police department did he serve when he died?
A: Iginiyagala Police Station, Ampara
Q: Do you know to whom he was married?
A: Yes.
Q: What was her name?
A: Nilmini Weerasinghe
Q: What was the condition of the marriage between Nilmini Weerasinghe and the deceased? Did
the deceased mention anything about his family life close to his death?
A: He told me that there was a rumour that his wife was having an affair with the accused here.
Q: Who are you referring to as the accused here?
A: Gajasinghe who is in the dock.
Q: Is this accused a relative of yours?
A: He is a relative from my wife’s side.
Q: Do you know how the deceased and the accused were related to each other?
A: He was the deceased’s aunt’s son.
Q: When did you get to know that Chandrasekera Jayawardena was dead?
A: 2005.07.19
Q: Did you see his dead body at some place?
A: I saw the body after I received the news.
Q: At the time you saw the dead body, where did you see it?
A: Near the road next to Gajasinghe's house.
32 | P a g e
Q: At what time did you see the body on the 19th?
A: After 7.00 am
Q: When did you see the deceased alive for the last time?
A: 2 or 3 days before his death.
Q: When you met the deceased for the last time, two or three days before his death, did he
mention anything about the accused and his wife?
A: I can’t remember.
Q: You mentioned that the deceased told you the accused had an affair with the deceased’s wife?
A: Yes
Q: Did the deceased tell you that he was going to take any steps on this issue?
A: Yes
Q: How many days before his death did he mention this to you?
A: On 16th night, about 3 days before his death.
Q: So on the 16th where did you two meet?
A: He came to my house.
Q: What did he tell you then?
A: The accused and them were living in Waliweriya.
Q: So who was living in Weliweriya?
A: Chandrasekera Jayawardena and his wife Nilmini Weerasinghe
Q: What did the deceased say when he met you three days before his death?
A: That he was working in Iginiyagala Police Station.
Q: What else did he say?
33 | P a g e
A: That he wanted to go to Waliweriya at that time with me.
Q: Did you ask him why?
A: He told me that Gajasinghe must have come to Waliweriya and that we have to go there.
Q: What did you tell the deceased?
A: I told him that accused had requested to see me three days ago and that he had asked a Time
Keeper at Kirindiwala about me by giving a call.
Q: That means the accused wanted to meet you and therefore, had given a call asking to meet
you?
A: Yes
Q; Upon the request did you talk to the accused?
A: Yes.
Q: So you mentioned that you met the deceased three days before his death. Which incident took
place first, you meeting the deceased or you talking to the accused?
A: I spoke to the accused first, after discussing I told him that we should meet and discuss.
Q: Did Jayawardena meet the accused and have a conversation with him before he died?
A: The deceased came to our house.
Q: Did anyone else come there?
A: At that moment the accused also came to the house.
Q: So, did the accused and the deceased have a conversation? Not a quarrel?
A: The deceased came first.
Q: According to you the accused came after?
A: Yes
Q: Did both the accused and the deceased have a conversation at your house?
34 | P a g e
A: Yes
Q: Did you hear what they were discussing?
A: Yes
Q: What did they talk about?
A: They were discussing about a family affair.
Q: What was the affair?
A: Affair between Nilmini Weerasinghe and Gajasinghe.
Q: Did the accused and the deceased talk about what steps they were going to take with regards
to the affair between the accused and the wife of the deceased.
A: Yes.
Q: Based on the conversation between the accused and the deceased, what were the steps they
were planning to take?
A: They were about to quarrel, I intervened.
Q: What did they say?
A: The deceased asked the accused whether he would like to have his wife.
Q: Did the accused answer? What was his reply?
A: He said he would like to.
Q: What else did the deceased tell the accused?
A: He told that he left his service at the police and hereafter he won’t be able to do his job
because he has left his post.
Q: Did they talk about a money deal?
A: He said he’ll pay compensation.
Q: Pay compensation to whom?
35 | P a g e
A: To the deceased.
Q: Did the deceased ask for a sum of money?
A: Yes, he asked for about 20 lakhs.
Q: From whom did he ask for money?
A: From the accused.
Q: Did the accused say anything then?
A: He agreed to give.
Q: Did they discuss anything else after that?
A: Yes, he asked how they got into a relationship.
Q: Did they talk about a date to exchange the money?
A: No.
Q: After the conversation who left first?
A: The accused left first.
Q: Did you meet the accused after that?
A: I met him on the next day at the boutique.
Q: You mentioned that the deceased was found lying on the road near the house of the accused?
A: Yes.
Q: How far away was the body from you when you first saw it?
A: At around 10m.
Q: What kind of a place was that?
A: In a drain on the road which was leading to the house.
Q: At that instance did you observe any injuries on the body?
36 | P a g e
A: No.
Q: Did you see anyone staying at accused’s place, at the time you saw the body?
A: At that moment there were a lot of people.
Q: Was the accused present when you saw the body?
A: No.
Q: You mentioned that the accused was related to you?
A: From my wife’s side.
Q: When you saw that the deceased was lying on the road, did you go to the accused’s house?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you observe anything inside the house?
A: Cops were inside the house.
Q: What did you see inside the house?
A: Police were there. There was blood on the carpets.
Q: Where did you see the carpets?
A: In the bathroom.
Q: Have you been to the accused’s place before?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you give a statement to the police?
A: Yes.
Cross examination:
37 | P a g e
Q: You mentioned that the accused, deceased and Nilmini were living in Waliweriya area - do
you know who bought this house?
A: I don’t know that.
Q: Weren’t you told that it was either the deceased or the accused who bought the house?
A: I can’t remember.
Q: Do you remember them saying that all three of them were planning to live together at that
place?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know that Gajasinghe rented a house for Chuti Ayya and Nilmini and they went to
live there?
A: I know they went.
Q: There was no dispute between the deceased and the accused when they were having the
conversation?
A: I didn’t let it happen.
Q: Did the deceased threaten the accused when he asked for money in the end?
A: The accused said he is willing to give 20 lakhs to get the deceased’s wife.
Q: Did the accused say that he had done something wrong and therefore he is willing to pay the
deceased?
A: The accused looked scared. He worshipped the deceased before leaving.
No further questions your honour.
End of evidence
(High Court Judge)
38 | P a g e
Stenographer: Ms. Udari Perera
Date: 18.09.2018
State counsel Nadeesha Kularatne appears for the state.
Attorney-at-law Prasanna Soysa appears for the accused.
Evidence on behalf of the Prosecution: PW15
Sarath Wickremaratne: Age 63, Address No.3, Wattala Road, Gampaha, Sinhalese/Buddhist
Swears.
Evidence in Chief
At this juncture the accused is willing to dispute the educational and professional qualifications of
the Judicial Medical Officer and therefore, the counsel humbly moved to record that as an
admission under Section 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure code.
Q: Doctor, are you retired at the moment?
A: Yes.
Q: How long did you serve as a government doctor before retiring?
A: 35 Years.
Q: What are the qualifications you had in order to qualify as a government doctor?
A: MBBS
Q: Do you have any post graduate qualifications in addition to your MBBS?
A: Yes.
39 | P a g e
Q: How many postmortems have you conducted while you were serving as a Judicial Medical
Officer?
A: 7000.
Q: Have you given any evidence before a court in relation to those postmortems?
A: Yes.
Q: Doctor have you conducted a postmortem of a person named Chandrasekera Jayawardena?
A: Yes.
Q: When was it conducted?
A: 2015.07.18
Q: Did you prepare a report on this postmortem?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you produced this report to the court?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you identify it?
A: Yes, I can.
(In this instance, the Postmortem Report is shown to the witness for identification)
Q: Do you recognize the signature and the seal?
A: I can identify it as my signature.
(The Postmortem report is marked P2 as evidence)
Q: Did anyone identify the body before it was dissected for the postmortem?
A: Yes.
Q: By whom?
40 | P a g e
A: By the brothers of the deceased, Pradeep Jayawardena and Ajith Jayawardena.
(In this instance, the defense admits that the postmortem report marked as P2 was conducted on
Mr. Chandrasekera Jayawardena. Therefore, it is marked as an admission under section 420 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.)
Q: How many injuries did you observe on the body of the deceased?
A: 6 injuries.
Q: Can you describe the injury marked as No.1?
A: It was a 5cm long linear cut injury on the left side of the head.
Q: Has this injury caused any internal damages to the body?
A: Injury Nos 1, 2 and 3 were on the skull. They had affected the brain substances.
Q: Have you described injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in one paragraph?
A: Yes.
A: It was 7cm long on the upper half of the skull.
A: It was a 3cm long cut injury on the left side of the head above the ear.
Q: How life threatening were those injuries to the deceased?
A: These three injuries have caused multiple fractures on vault of the skull and base of the skull,
causing multiple lacerations and contusions on brain substances.
Q: Have you described injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as cut injuries?
A: Yes.
Q: Have these cut injuries caused any fractures?
A: Yes.
41 | P a g e
Q: How does a fracture occur with a cut injury?
A: If the weapon used is heavy it can cause a cut injury along with a fracture.
Q: What is the effect of those cut injuries and fractures on the head and the brain of the
deceased?
A: Multiple lacerations and multiple contusions.
Q: When you consider injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together, do you consider them to be injuries with a
probability of causing death?
A: Those injuries can definitely cause death.
A: It was 6cm long laceration of irregular shape on the right mandibular bone.
Q: Does it have any effect?
A: Yes, an internal fracture.
42 | P a g e
Stenographer: Ms. Varsha
Date: 18.09.2018
Time: 11.15 am
Case Number: 16-2008 HC
Evidence in chief of Mr. Sarath Wickremaratne continued
Q: What is the internal injury caused by injury No.4?
A: This injury has caused a fracture in the right mandibular bone between 3rd and 4th teeth on the
lower jaw.
Q: What type of a weapon can cause injury No.4?
A: A heavy, blunt weapon.
A: It was a 2cm long laceration on the right side of the mouth.
Q: Were injuries No. 4 and 5 close to each other?
A: Yes, they were.
Q: Describe injury No. 6?
A: There were linear and curved abrasions of various sizes from (2.5mm to 0.5mm long) seen on
the front of the neck and both sides of the neck. Multiple contusions seen under the skin on the
front of the neck and both sides of the neck.
Q: Can you describe how injury No. 6 might have been caused?
A: Most probably from fingernails.
Q: How can nails cause an injury similar to No.6?
43 | P a g e
A: Most probably when two people wrestle.
Q: Were these injuries caused by fingernails of the deceased or by fingernails of the opponent?
A: By the opponent.
Q: What did you conclude was the reason for the death at the end of the postmortem?
A: Due to cranio-cerebral injuries caused by a sharp cutting heavy weapon.
Q: If you were shown a certain weapon will you be able to give your opinion on whether injuries
No. 1, 2 and 3 were specifically caused by that weapon?
A: Yes.
(In this instance, a knife is shown to the witness.)
Q: Doctor, how long ago did you conduct this postmortem?
A: 13 years ago.
Q: Doctor, what is your opinion on this weapon?
A: It has the ability to cause injuries No. 1,2 and 3.
Q: What could have been the nature of the weapon that caused injuries No. 4 and 5?
A: A blunt weapon.
Q: Could injuries No. 4 and 5 have caused due to a blow from the blunt side of the knife blade
that you are currently observing?
A: Yes.
(In this instance the knife is marked P3)
Q: During the postmortem did you observe that the deceased had consumed alcohol?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you recorded that in the postmortem?
44 | P a g e
A: Yes.
Q: According to your observation, can you give an opinion on how long the deceased could have
been alive after getting injured?
A: It could have been 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour or 2 hours. I cannot give an exact time.
Cross Examination
Q: In the postmortem report you have mentioned that there was a strong smell of alcohol.
A: Yes.
Q: What was the condition of food?
A: There were few particles of undigested food. It was light yellow in color.
End of cross examination.
End of evidence.
Rohan Abeykoon. Police Inspector. Age: 46, Sinhala/Buddhist swears.
Evidence in chief.
Q: What position do you hold in Sri Lanka police at the moment?
A: Police inspector.
Q: How long have you served in the Police?
A: 27 years.
45 | P a g e
Q: What police division were you serving in 2005 July?
A: The Kirindiwella division.
Q: When did Kirindiwella division receive the report on death of Chandrasekera Jayawardena?
A: 19.7.2008
Q: Did you commence an investigation in relation to that?
A: I assisted the investigation conducted by the OIC.
Q: Who was the OIC?
A: Chief Police Inspector Senaratne.
Q: Did you record any evidence relating to the identification of the body?
A: I recorded the statements of the deceased’s brothers.
Q: During the investigation did you discover a name of a suspect relating to the death of the
deceased.
A: Yes.
Q: Who is that?
A: Anuradha Gajasinghe
Q: Did you take any steps to arrest him?
A: Yes. He was arrested based on the OIC’s instructions.
Q: Where did the arrest take place?
A: In front of National Savings Bank, Colombo.
Q: When did you arrest him?
A: 19.07.2005. at 17.05 pm, in front of Kollupitiya National Savings Bank.
Q: Can you identify the suspect you arrested?
46 | P a g e
A: Yes.
Q: Where is he at the moment?
A: In the dock.
(In this instance, the witness identifies the suspect.)
Q: Where did you take the suspect after arresting him?
A: To his house.
Q: Where is his house located?
A: 1.5km from the Kirindiwela police station, behind the Excise office on the right side of the
road to Waliweriya.
Q: Were there any other officers present when the suspect was taken to his house?
A: Yes.
Q: Were their names included in your report?
A: Police Constable 35144 Sisira was present with me.
Q: After the discovery of the deceased’s body, how many days did it take for you to arrest the
suspect and accompany him to his house?
A: On the same day of discovering the body.
Q: When starting the investigation, did you have any idea about the location at which the body
was first discovered?
A: On the left side of the main road, about 50 meters away from the accused’s house.
Q: Was there anyone present in the house of the accused at Radaawana, when you brought him
from Kollupitiya?
A: Yes, there were two police officers on duty to guard the house.
Q: Was there anybody present inside the house?
47 | P a g e
A: No.
Q: How did you open the door?
A: With a key, which was in the possession of the accused.
Q: Did you investigate the house after opening the door?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you observe anything special that might have been related to this incident?
A: Yes, I inspected the house because there was a suspicion that this incident could have taken
place inside.
Q: What did you observe?
A: There were wet patches in the living room. There were dried water stains. There were stains
similar to blood drops in seven places.
Q: Did you record the places on which you found stains similar to blood drops?
A: In between living room chairs and on several places of the floor.
Q: On which areas of the house did you find blood drops on the floor?
A: In the living room, on the cement floor between the dining table, cabinet and the motor bike.
Q: What did you observe in blood stains and dried water stains?
A: It looked like stains left from washing away something similar to blood.
Q: Did you get a sample from the blood?
A: I took samples using cotton pieces.
Q: Did you observe anything special in addition to blood stains?
A: There was a clump of hair tangled in the door frame. I took it as a sample.
Q: Did you take any other items in the house as productions?
48 | P a g e
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did you find any cloth inside the house?
A: I did not find any cloths inside the house, but while I was observing the surrounding of the
house, I found four cloth carpets near the tap.
Q: Did you observe the carpets?
A: Yes.
A: There were stains, and it smelled identical to blood.
Q: Did you confiscate the carpets?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you identify if you see them again?
A: Yes.
Q: You observed all these on the same night the suspect was arrested?
A: Yes.
Q: What type of light did you use to conduct the observations inside and outside the house?
A: The accused turned on the bulbs. We used that light.
Q: Did you take steps to produce the blood sample and hair sample to the government analyst?
A: Yes.
State counsel: Your honor, the registrar of the productions states that the four carpets have not
been submitted as productions.
Q: When you produced the blood sample and the hair sample, did you produce it under a
production coupon
A: Yes, they were produced under production coupon number 148/4.
49 | P a g e
Q: Is the book containing production coupon present before you now?
A: Yes.
Q: You mentioned production coupon number as 148?
State Counsel: Your honor, I humbly request to mark the original production coupon No. 148;
P4. The counsel further requests the court to retain a photocopy of the receipt and release the
original to back to the police station.
Q: To whom did you handover the samples?
A: To police constable 32118 Thilak
Q: After inspecting the house of the accused, where did you take him?
A: To the police statement.
Q: Did you take steps record any statement from the accused?
A: Yes.
Q: At what time did you instruct someone else to record the statement of the accused?
A: After I questioned the accused at the police statement.
Q: Who recorded the statement under your instructions?
A: Police sergeant 31212 Gamini Perera.
Q: Were you present when Sergeant Gamini Perera was recording the statement?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you read that statement during the investigation?
A: Yes.
Q: Based on the statement, did you discover any other facts relating to this incident?
A: Yes.
50 | P a g e
Q: Can you read the quote extracted from the accused’s statement that relates to the discovered
fact?
A: Yes ‘Manna knife…I can show the knife on the kitchen table to police”
(In this instance it is requested to mark the portion as Evidence P5)
Q: After recording the statement, did you take the accused to another location for investigation?
A: Yes, we went to the house of the accused again.
Q: When was that?
A: 20.07.2005.
Q: At what time?
A: At 9.30 am.
Q: Who accompanied you in that investigation?
A: Police constable 39187 and the accused.
Q: After going to the accused’s house for the second time, what did you investigate based on the
facts you discovered from the accused’s statement?
A: Based on the accused’s statement, we found a knife.
Q: Where did you find it?
A: It was on the kitchen table next to the sink.
Q: Who showed you that knife?
A: The accused.
Q: Did you see a knife during your investigation on the previous day?
A: I saw several knives.
Q: Did you confiscate the knife shown to you by the accused?
51 | P a g e
A: Yes.
Q: Did you record the nature, shape and size of the knife?
A: Yes.
Q: What type of a knife was it?
A: It was a manna knife. It had a 6.5-inch-long wooden hilt. The blade was curved and 9.5 inches
long. It was a single bevel knife with an iron blade. The blade was 3 inches wide at the top and 2
¼ inches wide at the hilt.
Q: Did you see anything special on the knife blade when you confiscated it?
A: It had dried stains, similar to blood stains.
Q: Can you identify the blade if you see it again?
A: Yes.
(The knife marked as P3, it is shown to the witness)
Q: Is this the same knife?
A: Yes, this is the knife I took in to custody.
Q: Based on what features do you identify this knife.
A: Based on the production number and the size.
Q: Did you record any statements from other witnesses?
A: Yes.
Q: Whose statements were those?
A: Gajasinghalage Samarasinghe, Ajith Jayawardena, Nayana Sudarshan and Kamal

Kariyawasam.
Q: Did you take steps to produce the knife to Government Analyst Department for further
investigation?
52 | P a g e
A: Yes.
Cross examination.
(In this instance, the witness is shown the document marked as P4)
Q: The four carpets mentioned in this document have been struck off?
A: The ones that were not produced to the court have been struck off
Q: Why is that?
A: I am not the one who struck them off. That must have been done because they were not
produced to the court.
Q: You mentioned that you arrested both the accused.
A: I only arrested one.
Q: Didn’t you arrest anyone by the name Gayan Rathnayaka?
A: He was arrested.
Q: Was Gayan Rathnayaka arrested before or after arresting the accused who is currently
standing in the dock?
A: After.
Q: When, Where and at what time?
A: 19.07.2005 at 8.10 pm, at his house in Radaawana.
Q: Did you take this accused to Gayan Rathnayaka’s house?
A: Yes.
Q: At what time did you arrest the accused standing in the dock?
A: At 17.05 hours.
Q: So, that was at his workplace?
53 | P a g e
A: On the road in-front of his workplace.
Q: Was he outside the workplace when you got there?
A: No, we waited until he come out after work.
Q: How did you identify him?
A: The manager of the workplace pointed out that this was Gajasinghe.
Q: Was the body found early in the morning?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he arrested on the same evening at his workplace?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you arrest this accused and the accused named Gayan, and take both of them to the house
of this accused?
A: Yes, at the time I went to investigate the house, this accused accompanied me into his house
while other remained in the vehicle under the custody of a police officer.
Q: Did this accused possess the key to his house?
A: Yes.
Q: So, he opened the door, and you went in?
A: Yes.
Q: You went with police constable 35144, Sisira?
A: Yes.
Q: Accordingly, did you investigate the whole house?
A: Yes, we investigated the living room and the kitchen.
Q: You even investigated inside the washing machine and recorded what was inside?
54 | P a g e
A: Yes, we did.
Q: During the investigation you did not find any weapon relating to a crime?
A: No, we did not find any weapon at that time.
Q: You mentioned that the floor was wet?
A: Yes.
Q: The fact that the floor might have been washed was your own presumption?
A: There was water along with the stains, so I assumed that it was washed.
Q: Were the blood stains you mentioned, found at the same place as the dried water stains?
A: When I went to investigate there was no water on the floor near the blood stains but it looked
like something was washed off.
Q: Where was these blood stains you mentioned found on the dried water stains?
A: Yes.
Q: You mentioned that there was a motor bike?
A: Yes.
Q: You mentioned there were almirahs.
A: No, there were no almirahs.
Q: What objects did you observe in the room?
A: There was a set of sofas in the living room, a dining table, a cabinet, a motor bike and another
set of chairs.
Q: In the same area where the blood drops were?
A: Yes.
Q: There was no blood on any of the objects?
55 | P a g e
A: I didn’t observe any.
Q: So, you are saying that you took blood samples from the blood left on the floor?
A: Yes.
Q: You found the carpets outside the house?
A: Yes.
Q: You are saying that they were cloth carpets.
A: Yes.
Q: You said that they smelt like blood.
A: Yes.
Q: After investigating the house, you take the accused to the police station and take a statement?
A: Yes.
Q: And came back to find this knife based on Section 27 of the Evidence Ordinance?
A: Yes.
Q: Who opened the door for the second time?
A: The accused.
Q: So, you didn’t take the key from the accused at the first instance?
A: When the accused was taken to his house for the first time, there were two of his sisters and a
few of his relatives. The accused handed over his wallet, key and wristwatch to his sister at that
time. When we went to his house for the second time, the accused got the keys from the sister.
Q: So, the sister had the key?
A: Yes.
Q: You mentioned that you took this knife out of a few knives.
56 | P a g e
A: I did not say that I took the knife out of a few.
Q: So how did you take the manna knife?
A: The accused showed a knife on the table next to the kitchen sink. I took the knife he showed.
Q: You mentioned that there were a number of knives?
A: There weren’t a lot. There were two other knives, but the accused showed me a one on the
table next to the kitchen sink. That was the knife I confiscated.
Q: Did you mention anywhere in your records that you saw a lot of knives?
A: I did not mention that there was a lot. I recorded that there were two.
Q: So you have recorded that you saw two knives?
A: I recorded that I saw two knives during the initial investigation.
Q: Can you show that record?
(In this instance, the witness checks the police record book)
Q: Did you record that no suspicious items were discovered?
A: Yes, during the initial investigation.
End cross examination
No re-examination
End of evidence.
State counsel: Your honor, I request this court to issue summons for police sergeant 31212
Gamini Perera from Kirindiwela police station, who is witness No. 19 on behalf of the
prosecution.
57 | P a g e
.
(High Court Judge)

Stenographer: Ms. Kaushi Sanjeewani
Date: 25.01.2019
Nuwan Kumarasinghe appears for the State
Attorney-at-law Sajith Rupasinghe appears for the accused.
Name: Nishantha Senaratne, Age: 50, Buddhist, Sub Inspector of Police. Takes oath.
Evidence in chief.
Q: In what year did you join the Department of Police?
A: 1989.
Q: What is your current designation?
A: Assistance Police Inspector.
Q: How long have you served in the Sri Lankan Police?
A: 29 Years.
Q: What police department did you serve in 2005?
A: Acting Police Officer-In-charge Kirindiwella.
Q: Did you investigate this case?
A: Yes.
Q: Based on what information did you commence the investigation?
A: Based on an anonymous phone call.
58 | P a g e
Q: What was the message?
A: That there was a person lying in front of the Excise department.
Q: What steps did you take after receiving the call?
A: I left with a team.
Q: Who were in this team?
A: Police Inspector Nandasena, Police constable 39023, assistance police constable 26752 and
myself.
Q: To what place did you and your team go?
A: We went to the Excise Department which was 2 miles away from the Kirindiwela police
station.
Q: What did you observe after getting there?
A: There was a person lying on the ground.
Q: Did you make a record of your observations?
A: Yes.
Q: What were your observations?
A: I personally inspected the scene. There was a body lying on the ground parallel to the road.
Left hand was tucked under the body. The right hand was placed normally along the body the
lower part of the right hand was tucked under the stomach. The lower part of the right leg was
visible. It was under the left leg.
Q: What was that person wearing?
A: He was wearing a short sleeved white shirt with brown and black checks and a brown colored
trouser and a brown belt.
Q: Was that person dead?
A: Yes.
59 | P a g e
Q: Did you observe any external injuries on the body?
A: Yes, his left ear had blood at the time. Hair on left side of his head was covered in blood.
Q: Did you inspect the body to find out his identity?
A: Ajith Jayawardena and Sneha Jayawardena arrived at that time. They said that it was their
younger brother working in the police.
Q: What was the deceased’s name?
A: Chandrasekera Jayawardena.
Q: Did you find any productions near the body?
A: A police identity card, a gold leaf cigarette packet with four cigarettes, three letters and a
paper that had blood on it.
Q: In addition to three letters what did you find?
A: There was a packet of peanuts and cloths.
Q: Where did you find these objects?
A: Around the body.
Q: You mentioned that you found a police identity card. To whom did it belong?
A: To Police Constable 22471, C. Jayawardena.
Q: Can you identify this identity card if you see it again?
A: Yes.
(At this instance the identity card is shown to the witness. The identity card is marked as
evidence P6)
Q: You mentioned that a National Identity card was found?
A: Yes.
Q: Whose National Identity card was that?
60 | P a g e
A: No.25 Radaanawa, Chandrasekera Jayawardena.
Q: Can you identify the NIC if you see it again?
A: Yes.
(The identity card is marked as evidence P8)
Q: You mentioned that you found a pack of cigarettes. How many cigarettes were there?
A: Yes, there were four cigarettes.
(The packet of cigarettes is marked as evidence P9)
Q: You mentioned that you found 3 letters?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you identify this letter if you see them again?
(The letter is marked as evidence P10)
Q: Who wrote that letter?
A: It was written by Anuradha Gajasinghe
(Another letter is shown to the witness)
Q: Can you identify this letter?
A: Yes.
Q: Who wrote this letter?
A: It was written by Anuradha Gajasinghe, residing at No.300.
(The letter is marked as evidence P11)
Q: You have mentioned that there was a petition?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you identify it?
61 | P a g e
A: Yes.
(The witness is shown P1, the witness identifies the evidence already marked)
Q: Did you take those productions in to the custody and produce them to the police station?
A: Yes.
Q: Under what production record?
A: Under No.146/04.
Q: Did you observe the ground by the scene?
A: Yes.
A: Grass was flattened. The body was wet because it had rained on the day before so there were
no blood stains and the ground was muddy. It looked as if someone had struggled.
Q: Did you record your observations of the place where you found the body?
A: Yes.
Q: Subsequently, did you observe a certain person’s house?
A: Yes. The house of a person called Gajasinghe.
Q: Based on what information did you decide to investigate this house?
A: I wanted to get information on this incident but the house was closed. There was a trail on the
floor that looked as if someone was dragged along the ground.
Q: How far was the house from the place that the body was found?
A: Around 47 feet and 7 inches away.
Q: Was the house visible from the place where the body was?
A: Yes.
62 | P a g e
Q: What did you observe when you investigated the house?
A: There were blood stains under the portico.
Q: Did you observe the garden? What did you see?
A: It looked as if somebody had been dragged along the ground.
Q: Can you identify Gajasinghe if you see him again?
A: Yes, he is standing in the dock now.
Q: Was the accused present while you were inspecting the house?
A: No, all the doors and windows were closed.
Q: Did you investigate the interior of the house?
A: No.
Q: Who arrested him?
A: I instructed Sub Inspector Abeykoon to continue further investigations.
Q: So you observed the area around the body and recorded observations?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you involved in this case after that?
A: No.
Cross examination.
Q: Did you arrest any person in addition to this accused with regards to this incident?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did an officer named Gamini Perera from your department make an arrest?
A: I did not arrest. Nothing like that is recorded and I cannot remember.
63 | P a g e
Q: Is there a record stating that the Magistrate had instructed a police officer called Gamini
Perera to arrest another accused?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you accept that another suspect was arrested?
A: I did not arrest anyone.
Q: Did the magistrate ask you to arrest anyone?
A: I can’t remember; it has been a long time now. I instructed Abeykoon to carry out the
investigations.
Q: Where did you find the body? Next to a road or in a garden?
A: There was a sand path, next to it there was a grassy area. The body was next to that grass area.
Q: Was it Abeykoon who arrested this accused?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you produce the productions to the Government Analyst?
A: I produced them, as I was the acting OIC. Afterwards I came to Gampaha to resume my
duties as the OIC.
Q: You don’t know if the objects were sent to the analyst department?
A: No.
Q: You mentioned that it had rained on the day before?
A: I noticed that the clothes on the body were wet. So I assumed that it rained on the day before.
Q: Did you observe that there was rain?
A: It looked as if it had rained.
Re-examination
Q: When were you informed about the body?
64 | P a g e
A: On 19.07.2005 morning.
End of evidence
Name: Gamini Perera, Age: 55, Occupation: Sub Police Inspector, Police station: Gampaha,
Sinhalese Buddhist, swears.
Evidence in chief.
Q: Sir, in which year did you join the police force?
A: August 1985.
Q: How long have you served in the Department of Police?
A: More than 33 years.
Q: Which police station did you serve in 2005?
A: Crime department of Kirindiwela Police Station.
Q: Did you record the statement of this accused Gajasinghe?
A: Yes.
Q: When and at what time?
A: On 20.07.2005 at around 8.20 am.
Q: Where?
A: At the Kirindiwela police station.
Q: Who else was there when you recorded the statement?
A: Sub Inspector Rohan Abeykoon.
Q: Can you identify the accused if you see him again?
65 | P a g e
A: Yes, I can.
Q: Is he present here at the court today?
A: Yes, he is in the dock (identifies the accused)
Q: Did you discover any facts for further investigation based on the accused’s statement?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the discovery?
A: The manna knife.
Q: What part of the accused’s statement mentioned about the manna knife?
A: The part that said ‘Manna knife is on the table; I can show it to the police’
Q: If you are shown an extract from the statement, can you identify it?
A: Yes, I can.
(the extract marked P5. it is shown to the witness)
Q: Did you conduct further investigations on this statement?
A: Yes, Sub inspector Rohan Abeykoon conducted the investigation.
Q: Was it that officer who was present when you were taking down the statement?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you carry out any other duties?
A: I took the statement of Kanthi Senanayake who was a witness to this incident.
Q: When did you take that statement?
A: 22.07.2005.
Q: Was that it?
A: Yes.
66 | P a g e
Cross Examination.
Q: You are the one who recorded the statement of this accused?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did you record it?
A: Grave Crime Recorder GCR II
Q: When was that?
A: 20.07.2005. at 8.20 am.
Q: Do you have any record on the day on which the accused was arrested and produced?
A: I didn’t arrest the accused. It was sub inspector Abeykoon.
Q: The statement was directly written on the book. It wasn’t pasted?
A: Yes. It was written on the book.
Q: I suggest to you that your response about the accused mentioning a weapon in his statement is
a lie.
A: I do not agree.
Q: I suggest to you that you have written something down that was not mentioned by the
accused.
A: I do not agree.
No further questions.
End of evidence
Further examinations on: 15.06.2019.
(High Court Judge)
67 | P a g e
At High Court of Gampaha
Before Hon Namal Ranathunga.
(Stenographer: M Ariyasena)
Case No: HC/G 19/08
Date: 11.09.2018
Accused is present.
State Counsel Priyanthi Abeysinghe appears for the State.
Attroney-at-Law Prasanna Zoysa along with Attorney-at-Law Sajith Rupasinghe appear for the
accused.
Parties agreed to adopt all evidence recorded before my predecessor.
Evidence on behalf of prosecution: PW 13
Rajitha Kumarasinghe, Age 68, Retired Police Officer, 47/8, Temple road, Weliweriya, Sinhala
Buddhist, Swears before the court.
Evidence in Chief
Q: Where were you working in July, 2004?
A: Kirindiwela Police Station.
Q: Were you attached to any section in the Kiridiwela Police Station?
A: Yes.
Q: What is the section that you were attached to?
A: Criminal Investigation Division.
68 | P a g e
Q: Who was the Officer in Charge of the Criminal Investigation division at that time?
A: I was the OIC.
Q: Who was the OIC of Kiridiwela Police Station at that time?
A: At that time OIC was Chief Inspector Nishantha Senarathna.
Q: As the OIC of the CID of the Kiridiwela Police Station, did you make any notes regarding the
investigations carried out?
A: Yes
Q: Have you brought the relevant information books to the Hon. Court today?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you please elaborate in what incident that you have come to testify today?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the incident?
A: About a murder.
Q: whose murder?
A: Regarding the death of Chandrasekara Jayawardena.
Q: Who was the Chief Investigation Officer of this criminal investigation?
A: OIC of the Police Station.
Q: Was that Chief Inspector Nishantha Senarathna?
A: That’s right.
Q: Did you have any duties assigned to you?
A: To record evidence according to the information revealed in relation to the incident.
Q: Which witness’s testimony did you record?
69 | P a g e
A: Liyanage Nayani Sudusinghe.
Q: When did you record the statement of Liyanage Liyanage Nayani Sudusinghe?
A: On 09.08.2005
Q: Where was that statement recorded?
A: At Temple Road, Radawana.
Q: In addition, have you been recorded the statements of any other witnesses?
A: Nilmini Weerasinghe.
Q: Where did you record the statement of Nilmini Weerasinghe?
A: At Radawana on 09.08.2005. Next Surangani Liyanage statement was recorded on

13.08.2005. Statement by Kanthi Senanayake was recorded on 21.08.2005. Next statement by
Mahagamage Hema Chandani was recorded on 21.08.2005. Statement by Miniwanpriya
Mahinda Pieris was recorded on 21.08.2005.
Q: Have any other duties been performed in addition to recording these statements?
A: No my Lord.
Cross Examination:
Q: Did a person named surrender himself while you were on duty?
A: No
Q: I suggest that? Check on 30.07.2005 at 9.45 am.?
A: That’s right
Q: Surrendered, right?
A: That’s right. Gayan Rathnayaka
Q: A person by the name of Gayan Rathnayaka came to the Police after being informed by the
Police. You arrested him. What was the next step you took against him?
70 | P a g e
A: The statement was obtained by Police Sergeant Herath after the suspect was taken into
custody.
Q: Does that mean this Gayan Rathnayaka came as a suspect and surrendered to you?
A: Yes.
Q: when was that and what time?
A: At 3.45 pm on 30.07.2005.
Q: Did you record a statement of Pahamunige Chandrani, who is currently a witness of this case,
that is wife of the younger brother of this accused.
A: There is no name as Pahamunige Chandrani
Q: The 12th witness of this case?
A: Her statement was recorded by Inspector Panagoda.
Q: Has the statement of someone called Mahinda Peiris been recorded?
A: Yes.
Q: why was the statement of Mahinda Peiris recorded?
A: I wrote down the statement according to the instructions given by the OIC.
Q: What is the address of the Mahinda Peiris?
A: His permanent address is No. 2A, Foreign Service Road, Panadura. Temporary address is
228/C, Opposite of Old Excise Office, Radawana.
Q: Did you recorded Mahinda Peiris’s statement.
A: That’s right.
Q: When is that? And at what time?
A: At 4.30 pm on 21.08.2004.
71 | P a g e
Q: Did your investigations reveal that a man named Gayan was in the area at that night? Why did
you record that statement?
A: The OIC instructed me to record the evidence. Accordingly, I recorded the evidence.
Re – examination:
Q: The witness stated that in cross-examination that a person by the name of Mudiyanselage
Gayan Rathnayaka had surrendered to you?
A: That’s right.
Q: Look at your notes and tell the Hon Court that has there been a surrender of Mudiyanselage
Gayan Rathnayaka
A: That’s right.
Q: Check your notes and tell me whether he came on a police notice or not?
A: He came on a police notice.
Q: Has a person by the name of Maddumage Gayan Rathnayaka come voluntarily and surrender
to the police?
A: No.
Q: Has Maddumage N Rathnayaka given a statement to the Kiridiwela Police before this
investigation?
A: Yes.
Q: Who recorded the statement?
A: Police Constable 39184 Sisira.
Q: As the OIC at the Kiridiwela Police Station, can you say that statements have been recorded
from Gayan Rathnayaka on several occasions?
A: Yes.
End of the evidence.
72 | P a g e
Lakmal Ranasinghe, Age 55, Police Sergeant 20345, Attached to Police Intelligence Division,
Western Province, Kiridiwela Police Station, Sinhala Buddhist, Swears before the court.
Evidence in Chief
Q: What Police Station were you attached to in June, 2005?
A: Attached to Kiridiwela Police Station.
Q: Were you attached to any section of the Kiridiwela Police Station?
A: Yes.
Q: To which section did you attached?
A: Attached to the Crime Branch.
Q: Who was the OIC of the Crime Branch?
A: Sub inspector Rajitha Kumarasinghe
Q: Who was the OIC of Kiridiwela Police Station?
A: IP Nishantha Senaratne
Q: Do you write any notes of the duties performed while on duty at the Kiridiwela Police Station?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you brought any notes to the Hon. Court today?
A: Yes.
Q: Accordingly, can you tell me about the incident in which you have come to give this testimony
today?
A: Yes.
Q: In connection with what incident?
73 | P a g e
A: About a murder.
Q: About whose death?
A: About Chandrasekara Jawardena’s death.
Q: Did you performed any duty during the investigation into the death of Chandrasekara
Jawardena’s?
A: Yes.
Q: What is the duty performed by then?
A: Attended in Post-mortem examination.
Q: When was the post-mortem of Chandrasekara Jawardena conducted?
A: On 20.07.2004.
Q: Where did the post-mortem take place.
A: At the morgue of Wathupitiwala Hospital.
Q: Was the body of Chandrasekara Jawardena identified at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: By whom?
A: By his younger brother Ajith Jayawardena and elder brother Pradeep Jayawardena.
Q: Have their statements been recorded?
A: Yes.
Q: Who recorded those statements?
A: I did.
Q: Did you take over the production after the post-mortem examination?
A: Yes.
74 | P a g e
Q: what are the items included in the production.
A: A blood sample taken from the body, a clean piece of lint, clothe including a brown denim
trouser and a brown and white short-sleeve shirt, brown striped white coloured handkerchief, and
a black waist band.
Q: What action did you take regarding the production that you accepted?
A: The production was hand over to the sub-service of the police station.
Q: Did you recorded that production under the production record book before you handed over the
production to the sub-service?
A: I entered them under the receipt number 150 and handed over to the sub-service.
Q: Will you present the production record receipt number 150 to the Hon Court today?
No cross-examination.
No Re-examination.
End of the evidence.
State Counsel- Your Honor, I wish to inform your honor’s court that by leading evidence of PW 1,
2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 and marking production from P1 to P11, I am closing the prosecution.
Hence the state counsel informs this court that he is closing the prosecution, I wish to see under
section 200 (1) of the criminal procedure code, whether the prosecution has established the
commission of the offence charged against the accused in the indictment or of any other offences
of which he might be convicted on such indictment.
(High Court Judge)
75 | P a g e
High court of Gampaha
Before Hon Nalin Jayathilake
Date of Judgement: 2021.01.31
JUDGEMENT
In this case the charge against the accused is that, the accused has committed the murder of
Chandrasekara Jayawardena on the 18.07.2005 or on a day close to the aforementioned date, within
the jurisdiction of this court, in Radawana, thereby committing the offence of murder punishable
with death under section 296 of the penal code.
The prosecution has led the following evidence for the purpose of proving the charges in the
indictment beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Witnesses on behalf of the prosecution are marked as follows. The wife of the
deceased Nilmini Weerasinghe as PW1, the neighboring shop owner Kanthi Senanayake as PW2,
Cousin of the deceased Kamal Kariyawasam as PW3, Police inspector Rohan Abeykoon as PW
10, Sub Police Inspector Nishantha Senaratne as PW 11, Sub Police Inspector Gamini Pereranasn
as PW 12, Retired Police Inspector Rajitha Kumarasinghe as PW 13 and Police Sargent Lakmal
Ranasinghe as PW 14, The Judicial Medical Officer Sarath Wickremaratne as PW 15.
Based on the reasoning given below, I have decided to not to call for the defense and I shall conduct
the proceedings as per the section 200(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.
The primary responsibility of the prosecution shall be to establish that this accused himself has
committed the murder of the deceased according to the charges of the indictment. It shall be the
responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused himself has
inflicted bodily injury on the deceased with the intention of causing death on the date mentioned
in the indictment.
76 | P a g e
Based on the evidence led before this court, it can be seen that the prosecution has failed to fulfill
this responsibility. The prosecution has failed to establish that the crime was committed by the
accused himself and not by another person.
It should be noted that the entirety of this case is based on circumstantial evidence. When the
entirety of a case depends on circumstantial evidence, it is important that the only inference that
can be derived from those evidence is the fact that the crime has been committed by the accused
and nobody else. If there is a reasonable doubt that this crime could have been committed by any
other person, then the benefit of that doubt should be given to the accused.
The wife of the deceased who gave evidence as PW1 is the main witness of this case. According
to her the deceased was suffering from an illness. Based on her evidence, the deceased, the accused
and PW1 have been involved in a close relationship with each other.
The wife of the deceased, in her evidence has clearly stated the following;
With the consent of the deceased, P1 had been engaged in an intimate relationship with the accused
due to physical weaknesses of the deceased. She had engaged in sexual activities with the accused
as per the requests of the deceased, moreover, P1 and the accused have had sex at two instances
while the deceased was watching. In the evidence given by the witness she stated that they were
concerned about the villagers getting to know about their relationship and to continue this
relationship with each other without any issue they had bought a house in Ratupaswala. According
to evidence of the wife of the deceased, the deceased had been planning on handing her over to
the accused. She had answered the questions asked by the court as follows;
Q: Do you know why you were going to be handed over to the accused?
A: My husband said that an outsider will not treat me well but Gajasinghe ayya will look after me
well.
Hence, the deceased had considered the accused to be a trustworthy person.
Therefore, it can be seen that the deceased and the accused had something different from a conflict.
It was a connection where the deceased had given the accused a chance to have a sexual
relationship with his wife in order to protect and maintain the wellbeing of their future.
77 | P a g e
On the day of the incident, 2005.07.18, the deceased had left the house between 8.00 pm and 9.00
pm. In that instance the deceased had told his wife that he is on his way to take revenge from
Gayan Rathnayaka. According to the deceased’s wife the reason for him to take revenge was
because Gayan Rathnayaka had hit him with a torch on the previous day.
The wife of the deceased had gotten to know on the following morning that the deceased had been
found lying on the ground. The one who committed the murder and the reason for the murder is
unknown to her. Therefore, based on the evidence given by the wife of the deceased, an assumption
cannot be made that the accused had committed this crime.
The villagers had gotten to know about the death on 19.07.2005, morning when they had seen the
deceased fallen on the ground.
In evidence given by PW2, Kanthi, a shop owner who also happens to be a neighbor of the accused
stated that the deceased had come to Kanthi’s shop at around 9.00 pm on 18.07.2005. On that note,
it is clear that the deceased has left his house at around 8.30 pm to 9.00 pm, and that fact is further
established by the evidence given by the witness PW1.
The accused had bought meat curry and a few cigarettes from Kanthi. Her evidence indicates that
the deceased had been drunk at that time. In her evidence, she further stated that she was informed
by the deceased that he was planning to give his wife Nilmini to the accused. The wife of the
deceased has also mentioned this in her evidence.
Furthermore, in Kanthi’s statement it is mentioned that, the deceased has patted her head by saying,
“Nangi! on that hand, you are very precious.” This statement implies that the deceased was not
happy with the affair between the accused and his wife. However, the depth and the definite
existence of the affair is not clear.
Nevertheless, in Kanthi’s statement, she mentions that 10 minutes after the deceased left her shop,
a person named Gayan Rathnayaka had come to buy a box of Cigarettes.
Kanthi had not seen the place where the deceased went after leaving her shop. Furthermore, based
on her evidence, the place where Gayan Rathnayaka went after buying the cigarettes cannot be
78 | P a g e
indicated as well. Therefore, taking her evidence into account, it cannot be concluded that the
accused has a link to the crime.
The deceased’s sister’s husband Kamal Kariyawasam has given evidence as PW3. In his evidence
he has stated that he got to know that the accused and the deceased’s Wife (PW1) were having an
affair. He further stated that both the accused and the deceased came to his house three days before
the deceased was found dead, and on that day both the accused and the deceased have had a
conversation about this affair while the accused has expressed his willingness to take the
deceased’s wife. Kamal Kariyawasam’s evidence furthermore reveals that the deceased has asked
a sum of 20 Lacks from the accused to hand over his wife and the accused had agreed to pay the
sum. However, another important detail mentioned in Kamal Kariyawasam’s evidence is that the
deceased had suggestd to the accused that, “All three of us can live together.” Based on the
statement of PW1, it can be seen that the deceased was willing to live together with his wife and
the accused while his wife and the accused engaged in a sexual relationship.
However, according to Kamal Kariyawasam’s statement, both the accused and the deceased were
about to enter into an argument when they came to his house. Afterwards the accused had
worshipped the deceased. However, beyond that a criminal intention in the part of the accused
cannot be derived from any other incident.
Based on the evidence given by the accused’s relatives, the only fact that can be established is that
the accused and the deceased’s wife have had a sexual affair with the consent of the deceased.
Apart from that, no evidence can be found to show that the accused had any grudge or hate towards
the deceased. Based on the evidence of the prosecution, the only person towards whom the
deceased had a grudge against was Gayan Rathnayaka. In the evidence given by the officers in
charge of investigating this case, it states that Gayan Rathnayaka was arrested at the initial stages
of the investigation. However, is can be seen that neither this person has been included in the case
nor he has been summoned as a prosecution witness.
After receiving information on the crime, the investigations were conducted by the Police
Inspector Rohan Abeykoon (PW 10). According to his evidence, the body of the deceased was
found lying near the road, 50 m away from the accused’s house. It is mentioned that the accused
was arrested on the same day on which the dead body was found. According to the Inspector’s
79 | P a g e
evidence the accused was taken to his house in order to investigate. In his evidence the Police
Officer has stated the following;
“A: There were wet patches in the living room. There were dried water stains. There were
stains similar to blood drops in seven places.”
It states that, there were stains similar to blood, in between the living room chairs and several
places on the floor. There are a number of important details to be derived from the evidence of this
police officer. Firstly, he has taken a sample of the substance which was similar to blood by using
a cotton pieces. He has also taken a sample of the clump of hair which was entangled in the door
frame and had found four clothe carpets near the tap which had stains similar to blood and smelled
identical to blood. Secondly, the aforementioned blood and hair samples were marked under
Production Record No. 148/04 and was handed over to Police Constable Thilak Bandara. Thirdly
in his evidence, the witness mentioned that there were no stains similar to blood on living room
chairs, dining table, cabinet and the motor bike. The stains similar to blood were only found on the
floor.
Police Sargent Lakmal Ranasinghe (PW 14), gave evidence stating that he had participated in the
postmortem examination and that it was conducted in the Wathupitiwala Hospital’s autopsy room.
He further stated that the body was identified by the two brothers of the accused and that their
statements were recorded. Then, the clothes on the body of the deceased and a sample of the
deceased’s blood were given to him. Those productions were noted down and produced to the
police after recording in the production record.
The expert opinion of a government analyst is essential to determine whether the stains that looked
similar to blood and wet carpets which smelled identical blood were actually stained in human
blood. The opinion of a government analyst is also essential to determine whether the blood and
the clump of hair actually belonged to the deceased.
A police officer cannot conclude that the stains similar to blood are in fact actual blood stains. He
also cannot conclude whether that blood belonged to the deceased. To a police officer those are
merely suspicious stains.
80 | P a g e
The blood sample has been produced to the court by PW 14. The responsibility of the police is to
produce these samples to the Government Analyst to compare with an actual blood sample taken
during the Post Mortem. Unfortunately, the police have not taken necessary steps to produce these
to the analyst.
In the latter half of this case, under the instructions of the State Counsel, the Senior Officer in
Charge has produced a report giving explanations as to why the Government Analyst was not
consulted. That report is marked as X1 in this case.
However, this report does not establish that the accused had committed this crime. It can be seen
that the police have failed to conduct the investigation properly. They have been negligent and
unprofessional.
In that instance the court does not have the authority to decide that the crime was committed by
the accused solely considering the stains which were found in the house.
The evidence of a Manna knife was found based on the statement given by the accused during the
police investigation as per section 27(1) of the evidence ordinance. The accused’s statement has
been marked as prosecution’s evidence P5. In that it states that, “The Manna Knife is on the
table, I can show it to the Police.”
Therefore, the police have acted on this statement and the Police Inspector Rohan Abeykoon (PW
10) had once again taken the accused to his house. Then the accused himself had shown the Manna
knife which was on the kitchen table which was later marked as P3.
Inspector Rohan Abeykoon, PW 10 testified that the knife was pointed out by the accused among
several other knives on the kitchen table after the accused was taken back to his house.
After the body was found, the police had taken the accused to the house. The house was opened
with his key and thus inspected. There the accused had recovered the knife. Accordingly, neither
the items were found by the prosecution at that time nor observed. According to the police’s
evidence, the house was thoroughly searched by them. but it is unthinkable that this knife, which
was on the kitchen table in that house, went unnoticed by them. However, two days later, on
81 | P a g e
20.07.2005, following the revelation of the statement of the accused, he went home and showed
the knife on the kitchen table which was taken in to the police custody.
This evidence appears to have been presented as a recovery under Section 27(1) of the Evidence
Ordinance. In such cases, the law in particular, concludes that the accused has knowledge of the
weapon or product. Other than that, there is no presumption that the accused committed the crime.
In such cases, however, there must be strong and conclusive evidence on which to base a criminal
liability against the accused on the recovery of goods in accordance with Article 27 of the Evidence
Ordinance. Nevertheless, here it is difficult to conclude that the place where the item is located is
a place that is only known to the accused. Accordingly, it should be noted that evidence (PW 10)
will not be used at all to come to a conclusion about the guilt of the accused on that point.
Evidence relating to the recording of the statement of the accused, the observation of the place
where the body was found and the identity card of the diseased, the packet of cigarettes and several
letters as well as the statements of PW 2 were recorded by the present Assistant Inspector of Police
at that time Superintend of Police Nishantha Senaratne and Sub Inspector Gamini Perera testified
as PW 11 and 6 respectively. Retired inspector Rajitha Kumarasinghe testified as PW 13 who
recorded the statements of witnesses Nayana Sudarshini Liyanage, Nilmini Weerasinghe,
Surangani Samarasekara, Kanthi, Hema Chandani, and Mahinda Peiris. However, only Nilmini
Weerasinghe and Kanthi have been called as PW 1 and 2 in this case.
Apart from the above mentioned facts in the police investigation it does not present any important
or strong evidence in a way that gives rise to an indication of the guilt of the accused.
Evidence regarding the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Sarath Wickramaratne
and it was testified by the same doctor as PW 15. The relevant post-mortem report was marked as
P2 and the defence did not challenge the expertise, specialty and the educational qualifications of
the doctor. The diseased sustained six external injuries, among them injury number 01, 02 and 03
were cut injuries, 02 and 03 were severe cuts to the skull and have caused multiple fractures on
the vault of the skull and the base of the skull, causing multiple lacerations and contusions on brain
substances. The doctor therefore, has determined and concluded that the death is inevitable. It was
82 | P a g e
also concluded that the cause of death was injuries to the skull and brain from a sharp heavy
weapon.
The doctor is of the opinion that the injuries may have been caused by the knife marked P3,
especially that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wounds may have been caused by the knife marked as P3 and the
4th and 5th wounds may have been caused by the blunt side of the knife. Accordingly, the doctor
suggested that the knife marked P3 which was allegedly taken into the police custody from the
accused’s house could have caused injuries to the diseased, however that does not lead to the
conclusion that the accused alone may have committed the crime.
Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution which was analysed above, I conclude that the
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused himself committed this
crime in light of the indictment against the accused. It should be noted that the evidence presented
does not create a direct presumption that the accused alone committed the crime and other
reasonable assumptions also have been arisen here. I further conclude that the prosecution has
failed to prove the exact circumstances of the case based on circumstantial evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, there is no need to call upon defense on the ground that the
prosecution has failed to prove the indictment against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, I acquit the accused of the indictment filed against him under sub-section 200(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
(High Court Judge)
83 | P a g e
Gampaha High Court
Before Hon Nalin Jayathilake, judge of the High Court Gampaha.
(Stenographer: M Arangalle)
Case No: HC/G 19/08 11.09.2020
Ms. Priyanthi Abesinghe, State Counsel appears on

behalf of the State.
Accused is present.
Mr. Prasanna Soyza with Mr. Sajith

Rupasinghe, Attroney-at-Laws appears for
the accused.
I have considered the evidence presented by the prosecution in this case. After considering all that
evidence, I decided not to call any further defenses.
Accordingly, I acquit the accused under section 200 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(High Court Judge)
84 | P a g e
Post-Mortem Report
Inquest No - Place - Near excise department office Radaawana Courts – Pugoda

Magistrate court
Date - 20.07.2005 Case No – NS-482/2005
Name of the Deceased Person – Chandrasekera Jayawardena
Date and Time of Death (if known) – 18.07.2005 Night
Name of the Medical Officer Who Conducted the Post Mortem– Dr. Sarath Wickremaratne
Date and Time of the Post Mortem Examination – 20.07.2005, 10.10 am
Name and the designation of the Person Requested the Post Mortem Report – Mrs. Inoka
Cooray Magistrate, Pugoda
District – Gampaha
Place of Examination – Base Hospital Wathupitiwala
Names and Addresses of Person 1. Pradeep Jayawardena- Brother

who Identified the Body 12/A, Thilina, Horagahawatte, Radawana.
2. Ajith Jayawardena- Brother
161/A, Kelagawatte, Radawana
85 | P a g e
INSTRUCTION TO MEDICAL OFFICER
1. Write every report on the presumption that it may have to come before court; make it short,
but clear and accurate. Avoid as far as possible the use of technical terms.
2. State all events in chronological order, but do not report hearsay evidence as facts.
3. Write all name of persons and places in full: express all dates and important numbers in
writing. Note the relationship, if any, of the identifying witnesses to the deceased.
4. Take accurate notes from which to compile your report. Measure all dimensions.
5. Preserve, if possible, any part which may help in demonstrating the nature of injuries on
the cause of death. Make a list of all such material, and also of articles submitted for further
examination. Obtain a receipt for any item handed over to the police.
6. State your conclusion briefly at the end of the report.
7. Avoid superlatives, opinions of feelings, impressions, speculations and referances to moral
circumstances.
8. Form Health 1135A may be used in conjunction with this form to make diagrammatic
record of injuries.
9. Compile your report and transmit it as soon as possible, keeping a copy for yourself.
86 | P a g e
87 | P a g e
1. Examination of the locus Post Mortem Room.

(place and the position of the body)
The body was that of a well-nourished, dark skinned,

2. External examination of the body male person who was dressed in light brown trouser
(with a black belt) and a short sleeved white shirt with
(clothing, nourishment, colour, marks
black and maroon squares on it. A handkerchief and
and Products of decease, etc.) Rs. 150 found in the right pocket of the trouser. Blood
stains were seen on the shirt.
3. Injuries (inflicted before and after death) (use continuation sheet, and Health 1135A if
necessary)
Mainly near the collar, sand and plant leaves were seen all over the body.
External Injuries (Inflicted before death). Diagram annexed
01. 5cm long, linear cut injury which was gaping 1cm
These three injuries have caused multiple fractures on the vault of the skull and the
base of the skull, causing multiple lacerations and contusions on brain substances.
04. 6cm long, laceration of irregular shape.
This injury has caused a fracture on the right mandibular bone between teeth, 3 rd and
4th in the lower jaw.
05. 2cm long, linear laceration.
06. Nine linear and curved abrasions of various sizes (From 2.5cm-0.5cm long) seen on
the front of the neck and both sides of the neck. Multiple contusions seen under the
skin on the front of the neck and both sides of the neck.
88 | P a g e
4. Height (by measure) 175cm

5. Age 42 Years
6. Sex Male
7. Eyes and Pupils Dilated and fixed
8. Length, color and condition of hair 5cm, Black, Straight
9. Position and condition of tongue Normal
10. Number of teeth Teeth incomplete. Only 6 teeth were seen
(complete, incomplete, peculiarities) on the upper jaw and 7 teeth seen on the
lower jaw.
11. Signs of death
(record temperature where necessary
Primary Flexibility
Rigor mortis Body was kept in a cooler.
Hypostasis Body was kept in a cooler.
Putrefaction Found on posterior aspect.
12. Condition and contains of hands and

nails Normal
13. Natural Openings (Specially with

reference with foreign substances
presence)
Normal
Nose, Mouth and ears
Normal
Urinary and sexual
Normal
Anal
14. Neck As mentioned above
89 | P a g e
15. Head 4454

Soft parts covering it As mentioned above.
Bones of skull As mentioned above.
Membranes and sinuses of brain As mentioned above.
Brain substance As mentioned above.
Blood vessels of brain As mentioned above.
16. Spinal Code No dissected.
17. Thorax
Soft part covering it Normal
Chest cavity Normal
Pericardium Normal
Heart Normal
Coronary Valves Normal
Large blood valves Normal
Larynx, trachea and chlamydia Normal
18. Abdomen
Contains, vassals and position of organs Normal
Peritoneum Normal
Diaphragm Normal
Liver and gall bladder Normal
Spleen Normal
Stomach (condition and contains) Stomach was filled with straw colored
liquid and few undigested food particles.
There was a strong smell of alcohol.
Duodenum, jejunum & ileum Normal
Partially digested food is seen.
Large intestine Normal, faeces seen.
Pancreas Normal
Kidneys Normal
Supra-renal glands Normal
90 | P a g e
19. Pelvis
Urinary bladder prostate Normal
Generative organs Normal
Blood vessels Normal
Vertebrae and pelvis bones Normal
20. Cause of death and other relevant Death was due to cranio-cerebral injuries
opinion caused by a sharp cutting heavy weapon
Post mortem register serial number - 212 Duly signed and placed stamp
Signature, qualification and

20.07.2005 designation of Medical Officer
Date Dr. Sarath Wichramarathna

MBBS
91 | P a g e

Revised Case Brief 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Revised Case Brief 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revised Case Brief 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KDU Moot Court and Debating Society

General Sir John Kotelawala Memorial Moot Court Competition 2022

Instructions on the Moot:

3. The following Brief contains:

b. Evidence of NINE (09) Witnesses.

d. Judgement of the High Court

Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri

In the High Court of Gampaha Judicial Zone

Criminal Case Number

Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

The accused herein committed the murder of Chandrasekera Jayawardena, in Radaawana,

13. Retired Police Inspector Rajitha Kumarasinghe

GAMPAHA HIGH COURT

Before Honourable Justice Mrs Lakshmi Atapattu

Stenographer: Malishini Perera

Case No: 19/08

Appearing on behalf of the State: State Counsel Priyanthi Abeysinghe

Accordingly, I now commence the trial.

(High Court Judge)

High Court of Gampaha

Before Honorable Justice Lakshmi Atapattu

Stenographer: Ms. Udeni Perera

The accused is present.

State counsel Priyanthi Gunawardana appears for the state.

Evidence on behalf of the prosecution: PW 1

Q: From where did you form today to give evidence?

Q: Where were you residing prior to 2015?

Q: When did you start residing in Puttalam District?

Q: Where were you residing prior to 2006?

Q: Do you remember the address of the place of residence prior to 2006?

A: I do not remember the address, only that it was Ratupaswala

A: Regarding the loss of my husband.

Q: When was that?

Q: What did you get to know about on 19.07.2005?

A: On 19.07.2005 I was contacted by my husband’s family.

Q: On 19th, what did your husband’s family say?

A: My husband is at the house, to visit and go.

Q: Husband’s house? What is that house?

A: My husband’s ancestral house.

Q: When was that? In the morning or at night?

A: In the morning between 7.30 and 8.00

Q: Accordingly, did you go to the ancestral house?

Q: What happened when you went there?

Q: Did you go there and see?

Q: When you went there did you see your husband?

Q: Where was your husband?

Q: What is the crossroad called?

A: Don’t know a name

Q: How was he lying on the crossroad?

A: He was covered with a cloth.

Q: In what condition was your husband in? Was he conscious?

Q: This was on 19th July 2005?

Q: What was your husband’s name?

A: On the 18th night between 8.30 and 9.00

A: Me, my husband, and my son.

Q: Only the three of you?

Q: How old was your son then?

Q: By 18th July 2005, was your husband doing a job?