Archives

Denzil Kobbekaduwa Commissioner cannot be called as witness - ASG

by Sandasen Marasinghe

Additional Solicitor General Palitha Fernando argued that the Commissioner of the Denzil Kobbekaduwa Commission cannot be called before the Court in connection with the current case since the Commissioner submitted only an opinion about the witness, before the Trial-at-Bar hearing the Udatalawinna massacre.

The Trial-at-Bar comprised High Court Judges, Eric Basnayake (President), Deepali Wijesundara and Sunil Rajapakse.

Defence Counsel Anil Silva submitted that section 138(2) of Evidence Ordinance included the procedures as to how cross examinations should be carried out and how to use the right to cross examine was included in Section 138(2) to 146 of same.

Accordingly a witness could be questioned to verify the credibility and the accuracy of his evidence. Therefore the Defence can call the Commissioner of the Denzil Kobbekaduwa Commission as a witness and before this Commissioner could called before the court the witness, has to be questioned.

Defence Counsel: "My attempt is to show the Trial-at-Bar that his evidence is incredible. The Commissioner of the Kobbekaduwa Commission had submitted that this witness had tampered with evidence for the benefit of the criminals and he could be punished under the Penal Code."

Further the Defence counsel requested the Trial-at-Bar to let him question witness about his opinion of the Commissioner of the Kobbekaduwa Commission under Section 146(a) of Evidence Ordinance.

At this stage Defence Counsel R. I. Obeysekara PC stated that evidence given before a Commission also could be accepted as that of a Court and a Commission could be considered as a Court.

Additional Solicitor General Palitha Fernando stated that an opinion of a Commissioner could not be admitted at a Court since his evidence was not expert evidence.

Further he stated that the Commissioner's opinion could not be admitted since he (Commissioner) was not known to the witness and the Commissioner's opinion was based on what others said. But the evidence of a person who work with the witness at the Government Analyst Department could be admitted.

Further Additional Solicitor General submitted that an opinion of a writer which was published in a newspaper about the witness could be questioned in the Court according to the argument of the Defence Counsel. But an opinion in a newspaper was not questioned at the Court since it was the opinion of the writer. In the same manner opinion of the Commissioner was of his own. The Additional Solicitor General objected to the request of the Defence.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager