ATTORNEY GENERAL VS SAMINATHAN SASHIKUMAR

• Case Number: 2021SCOA109C2013Y
• Citation: 2021SCOA109C2013Y
• Date: 26 March 2021
• Court: Court of Appeal (Sri Lanka)

1

ATTORNEY GENERAL

VS

SAMINATHAN SASHIKUMAR

Court of Appeal Case No: 109/13
Badulla HC 06/2004

Attorney General

Complainant

Vs

Saminathan Sashikumar

Accused

And Now

Saminathan Sashikumar

Accused-Appellant

Vs

Attorney General

Complainant-Respondent

Before: N. Bandula Karunarathna J. &
R. Gurusinghe J.

Counsel: Indica Mallawaratchy for the Accused-Appellant
Azard Navavi DSG for the Complainant - Respondent.

Argued on: 01/03/2021

Written Submissions: By Accused-Appellant on 12.01.2018
By Complainant - Respondent on 12.03.2018

Judgment on: 26/03/2021

N. Bandula Karunarathna J.

The accused-appellant was indicted in the High Court of Badulla for committing the murder of one Puwa Muththuraja on 06.10.2000, punishable under section 296 of the Penal Code. After trial without a Jury, the learned High Court Judge convicted the accused-appellant and imposed the death sentence on 07-08-2013. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused- appellant has preferred this appeal to this court.

2

Wasundara Devi (PW01) in her testimony before the High Court has stated that they lived in a line room and that the appellant too lived close by. On the date of the incident her husband and the deceased left home around 5.00 PM towards the 'Devalaya'. Around 6 PM the appellant had come into their house armed with a large knife and threatened that he would kill her husband. Subsequently, half an hour later the deceased and the accused has met one another near a boutique and there had been an argument between the two of them and the appellant had there again threatened to kill the deceased. Thereafter around 8 PM, PW 1 and her daughter had gone in search of the deceased and they saw his T Shirt and then blood on the road. The appellant had come towards them and confessed that he had killed the deceased asking them not to worry as he is there to look after PW 1 and the daughter. Then he had left the scene saying that he was going to the police station. Being alarmed by the utterance of the appellant she had proceeded few yards further and found the husband fallen on the ground with cut injuries.

The learned Counsel for the accused appellant says that it was the evidence of the said witness that the deceased and the appellant were drinking pals and that after consuming liquor they would engage in petting altercations and thereafter they would make up. PW 1 has testified that on the day in question, appellant had come home around 6.00 p.m. armed with a knife when the deceased was not at home and had made an utterance to the effect that he would attack the deceased which prompted the witness to retort by saying that "since both are men let's see how you are going to attack the deceased."

Witness has further testified that since the deceased got late in returning home she had gone in search of the deceased at which point she had seen the appellant and the deceased having an altercation on the road subsequent to which they had parted company and the deceased had gone towards the 'Devalaya'. It was the evidence of the witness that around 8.00 p.m. when she had gone in search of the deceased in the company of the daughter, she had seen the deceased's T-shirt on the road and had bumped into the appellant who had made a confessionary utterance to the effect " mama thamai, oyage mahathaya maruwe, Mahathaya kapuwa, baya wenna epa Mama policeyata yanawa."

It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that in cross-examination a vital omission has been highlighted. In his police statement the witness has failed to mention that the appellant had come home looking for the deceased armed with a knife.

The appellant and deceased had met near the boutique, an altercation has taken place between them and at that point the appellant has threatened that "he would by some way or the other kill him today" and this is the 2nd instance that the appellant had very clearly made known his intention within a span of 1 to 2 hours on the day of the incident.

Menaka (PW 06) the daughter of the deceased in her testimony has corroborated the evidence of Wasundara (PW01).

3

Chandrasekaran (PW 09) states in his evidence that the deceased was his brother-in-law and that both the appellant and the deceased were not in good terms and they both would quarrel very often, after getting drunk. Further, he states that on the date of the incident too he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased.

Learned Counsel for the appellant says that it transpires from the afore-named witness who was the brother-in-law of the deceased that the appellant and the deceased would engage in constant petty quarrels daily after consuming liquor and on the day in question around 6.30 - 7.00 p.m. He had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased on the road which had prompted him to slap the appellant at which point the latter had gone towards the direction of his house. Witness has further testified that 45 minutes after the fracas, he had received a message with regard to the incident of murder. He further testified that at the time of the fight they were both drunk and has further reiterated that it was a daily occurrence for them to drink and fight.

The Judicial Medical Officer (PW18) in his evidence has stated that, he observed 20 external injuries and the majority of which were cut injuries. He had further observed that there were 07 deep cut injuries and opined that extensive bleeding due to multiple-extensive cut injuries as the...