GALLELAW BLOGGER

  786  Headnote: Jagath Premalal Senanayake v. Attorney General  Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka  CA/HCC/0166/2016  Decided on: 13th September 2024  Court: Court of Appeal  Judges: Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.; P. Kumararatnam, J.   Facts:  Jagath Premalal Senanayake, the accused-appellant, was indicted for the murder of two individuals, Madarasinhage Chandrawathi and Madarasinhage Padmawathi, on or about August 22, 2008, an offense punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code. After a jury trial, the High Court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, raising multiple grounds of appeal, including procedural irregularities, errors in jury direction, and misapplication of law regarding the evidence.   Held:  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no merit in the appellant

Head note: Ganegamage Sarath Samarajeeva and Kirinde Dissanayake Indra Kumari v. Attorney General  CA/HCC/16/2018  Decided on: 11th September 2024  Court: Court of Appeal  Judges: Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.; P. Kumararatnam, J.   Facts:  The accused-appellants, Sarath Samarajeeva and Indra Kumari, were convicted by the High Court of Balapitiya for grievous hurt under Section 317 of the Penal Code for throwing acid at Withanachchi Gunawardena Siriyalatha (PW1) in November 2006. The appellants were sentenced to 7 ½ years of rigorous imprisonment, fined, and ordered to pay compensation to the victim. They appealed against the conviction, based on the grounds of discrepancies in the identification and reliability of evidence.   Background of the Case:  The incident occurred in 2006 when PW1, who lived with her husband, had a dispute with the accused-appellants, who were tenants in a house owned by PW1’s husband. The dispute arose over the appellants' alleged involve

                     Headnote:  Pradeep Kariyawasam v. Colombo Municipal Council & Others  SC (FR) Application No. 08/2019  Decided on: 12th September 2024  Court: Supreme Court  Judges: S. Thurairaja, PC, J.; A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.; K. Priyantha Fernando, J.  Facts:  Dr. Pradeep Kariyawasam, the petitioner, filed a fundamental rights application against the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) and several other respondents, alleging a violation of his rights under Article 12(1) of the Sri Lankan Constitution. The petitioner, upon retirement, failed to vacate the official residence provided to him as a Chief Medical Officer by the CMC, despite multiple notices. The petitioner also sought the transfer of the residence to his wife, which was denied. The petitioner’s pension was delayed due to his refusal to vacate the quarters, prompting him to file the application.    Held:  That the petitioner failed to establish a violation of his fundamental rights. The Court held that the delay i

A much talking judge is an ill-tuned cymbal" that encapsulates a profound insight into the nature of authority, wisdom, and communication. At its core, this statement suggests that verbosity and excessive speech do not inherently equate to competence, sagacity, or effectiveness in judgment. Instead, it implies that a judge who speaks excessively, without restraint or discernment, diminishes the impact and authority of their words, much like an improperly played musical instrument that produces discordant noise rather than harmonious melodies.  [Observation by GALLELAW BLOGGER] The Court must not question the witnesses in the spirit of beating him down or encouraging him to give an answer. The judgment highlights several concerns regarding the conduct of the High Court Judge during the trial. Specifically, the Judge's excessive questioning of defenCe witnesses, particularly the appellant's daughter, raised concerns about bias and denial of a fair trial.  1. Excessive Interv