Appeal Court affirms conviction, death sentence on two

BY WASANTHA Ramanayake

THE Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed on two accused for the murder of five persons including a disabled person and a 10-year-old girl in Kotugoda, Negombo on September 3, 1987.

Accordingly, conviction and the death sentence imposed on accused-appellants T.A. Upali Sarathchandra and T.H. Gamini Sarathchandra for murdering Somapala, Nandawathie, their daughter Nadeeka Shiromi, a disabled person Anil Jayasinghe and his wife Chandra were affirmed.

Justice Jagath Balapatabendi delivering the judgment with the agreement of Justice S.I. Imam observed that having considered all grounds he could not find any reason to set aside the conviction.

The accused-appellant were brothers and were living close to the deceased. The first accused was an uncle who died before the trial commenced.

Justice Balapatabendi observed that the Nadeera Somananda (24 years at the time of giving evidence and 12 years old at the time of the incident) giving evidence stated that the first respondent had shot his father and mother. The first accused was armed with a pistol, the second with a manna knife and the third with a gun.

Having entered the house after both his parents were shot by the first accused, the second accused had cut both of them to death. Later he had dragged out Chandra from her hiding place and cut her too to death. The third accused had shot Jayasinghe to death at close range with his gun while he was hiding under a bed.

According to the eyewitness Nadeera, the first accused had asked the second respondent to hack his sister Shiromi to death while she was pleading not to kill her and the second accused had done accordingly.

The Judge noted that the second accused-appellant had denied any involvement in the incident and stated that he and his brother (third accused) were in their brick-clink when the incident occurred.

Justice Balapatabendi noted that Nadeera's evidence had been sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence, evidence of the Police Officer and the aunt of the witness.

"On a perusal of the judgment, it is obviously clear that the Learned High Court Judge had evaluated the evidence with reference to the spontaneity, consistency, probability and demeanour of the witness."

Justice Balapatabendi was of the opinion that the evidence given by Nadeera was trustworthy and credible. Citing judgments of several cases to the effect that single solitary witness could be acted upon by a Court of Law, he noted that "it is apparent that the Learned High Court Judge had carefully analyzed, evaluated and weighed the evidence of the eye witness Nadeera Somananda, and was convinced that the eye-witness had given cogent, and truthful testimony in Court, also by observing the demeanour and deportment of this witness who was subjected to very long and protracted cross-examination, had arrived at findings in regard to credibility and trustworthiness of the testimony of this witness. In view of those circumstances, he had believed the evidence given by the witness without any hesitation or doubt."

He observed that considering the evidence the learned High Court Judge, had come to the correct conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case against the both accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubts and the evidence given by the second accused-appellants had failed to raise any reasonable doubt or suspicion on the prosecution case and no reliance could be placed upon the evidence of the second accused-appellant. President's Counsel Ranjith Abeysuriya with Thanuja Rodrigo appeared for the first accused-appellant.

Dr. Ranjit Fernando with H. Kularatne appeared for the second accused-appellant.