The primary issue in this appeal was whether the identification of the Appellants by key witnesses was sufficiently reliable, given the limited light at the scene of the crime

-

 HEADNOTE:

Court: Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Case No: SC/APPEAL/34/2021
Date: 11th September 2025
Judges: Janak De Silva, J., Mahinda Samayawardhena, J., Menaka Wijesundera, J.

Subject: Appeal against the conviction and sentence of the Court of Appeal concerning unlawful assembly and murder.

Facts:
The Appellant, Karunasundera Devayalage Upul Kumara, along with five others, was indicted under Sections 296 and 355 of the Penal Code for unlawful assembly and under Section 32 of the Penal Code. The 1st to 5th accused were convicted and sentenced to death on the 4th and 5th counts, but the 4th accused was acquitted. The Appellant appealed the conviction and sentence, raising questions regarding the identification of the Appellants by the prosecution witnesses.

Issues:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the identification of the Appellants by key witnesses was sufficiently reliable, given the limited light at the scene of the crime.

Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the identification of the Appellants was adequately supported by credible and consistent testimony from the witnesses. Specifically, the Court held that the witness PW1 had sufficient time and light to identify the Appellants during the crime and that the defense did not challenge the quality of the light at the scene. The identification parade was also deemed valid, as PW1 had previously interacted with the Appellants for over 15 minutes. Furthermore, the testimony of PW3, who identified the 1st Appellant by voice and recognized the 4th and 5th Appellants, was considered credible.

The Court noted that the legal principles from cases like Wijaya Bahu Rai v. State of Bihar and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab affirmed that even under low light conditions, the identification of known individuals was reliable. The Court also referred to SC (SPL) Appeal 7/2018, emphasizing that recognition of known individuals is generally more reliable than identification of strangers.

Outcome:
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence by the Court of Appeal were upheld.

 






SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT CLICK 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

-
Image
  TRUST - A presentation -  October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER   [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader]     "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER     October 29, 2016   TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI  ...
Read more

some selected

-
Image
  Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o...  read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...
Read more

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

-
Image
  The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand]​​  The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd  defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property.  The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...
Read more