HON.ATTORNEY GENERAL VS. RAMALINGAM SELVARATNAM - HON. W. M. M. MALINIE GUNARATNE, J

• Jurisdiction: Sri Lanka
• Case Number: 2016SCOA09C2015Y
• Citation: 2016SCOA09C2015Y
• Date: 10 May 2016
• Court: Court of Appeal (Sri Lanka)
• Type of Document: Unreported judgment

1

Hon.Attorney General

Vs.

Ramalingam Selvaratnam - Hon. W. M. M. Malinie Gunaratne, J

C.A. Revision Application No. 09/2015
H. C Jaffna Case No. HC/1706/13

In the matter of an Application for Revision made under Article 138 of the Constitution read with Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.

The Attorney General,
Attorney General's Department,
Colombo12.

Petitioner

VS

Ramalingam Selvaratnam,
1st Mile Post, Masi Adi,
Kalwayal,
Chavakachcheri.

Accused - Respondent

BEFORE : W.M.M. Malinie Gunaratne, J. and P.R. Walgama, J.

COUNSEL : Anoopa de Silva, S S C for the Petitioner
Respondent was absent and unrepresented.

2

Argued on : 10.12.2015

Written submissions filed on : 25.01.2016

Decided on : 10.05.2016

Malinie Gunaratne, J.

The Petitioner has preferred this application seeking to revise the Order of the learned Trial Judge dated 30.09.2014 and for an order directing the learned Trial Judge of Jaffna to allow the prosecution to call the prosecutrix to give evidence on her behalf.

The Accused Respondent was indicted in the High Court of Jaffna for having committed the following offences.

(i) The Respondent between the period of 1st January 2011 - 20th April 2011, at Chavakachcheri committed the offence of kidnapping Sachithanandhan Hamsa (a female under 16 years of age) from her lawful guardian, namely Sachithanandhan Yoganathan Sachithanandhan and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Penal Code.

3

(ii) The Respondent during the course of the same time, place and transaction referred in Count No.1, committed the offence of Statutory Rape of Sachithanandhan Hamsa (a female under 16 years of age) and thereby committed an offence which is punishable under Section 364 (2) E of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 22 of 1995.

The indictment was read over to the Respondent and upon the Respondent pleading not guilty, the case was fixed for trial.

On 30th September 2014, upon an application made by the State Counsel, to the learned Trial Judge, the case was taken for trial in camera; the learned Trial Judge having identified the prosecutrix is 13 years old, decided to test the competency of the witness to testify before the Court.

The learned Trial Judge asked several questions from the prosecutrix with regard to her name, age, school, class, country of birth, village and date of birth. The prosecutrix accurately answered those questions. Further, the Trial Judge asked a question from the witness with regard to the name of the President of Sri Lanka and the name of the capital of Sri Lanka. There was no response from the prosecutrix to the said questions. Thereafter again the

4

learned Trial Judge posed another question whether she knows the Courts and the prosecurtix answered the said question affirmatively.

A certified true copy of the proceedings dated 30.09.2014 in Tamil language marked as P3 and the English Translation of the same marked as P4 and pleaded as part and parcel to the Petition.

Thereafter the learned Trial Judge ruled that the witness IS not a competent witness and she is not in a position to give clear answers to the questions put to her by the Court and further ruled that, accordingly her evidence is...