Fredrick W Obeysekera deed case:

Prosecution has not proved charges beyond reasonable doubt

Sarath Malalasekera

Colombo High Court Judge P. R. Walgama in the Fredrick W. Obeysekera deed case, stated that in the teeth of the evidence this court is compelled to come to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

In effect the prosecution has failed to prove that the signatures appearing in - P31, P32 and P33 - are not the signatures of the donor the late Fredrick W. Obeysekera.

On the contrary the evidence of the Examiner of the Questioned Documents Batakanda’s evidence was that the signatures in the above deeds are similar to the signatures of the deed marked as X1 and X6. Hence in the above elucidation a reasonable doubt is exposed to the execution of the alleged deed no 1581, which doubt should be decided in favour of the accused. Hence I hereby acquit and discharge the second and third accused accordingly.

The accused in this case were Bandula Wijesinghe, (deceased), Sarath Wijewardena and Sumedha Perera.

The charges were that between June 11 to 26, 2001, the second and the third accused with Bandula Wijesinghe who is now dead did conspire to make a false document namely false deed No. 1581.

Count two and three are against the second and third accused persons respectively that they aided and abetted Bandula Wijesinghe to make a false deed bearing No.1581 in which a person unknown to the prosecution has signed as Fredrick Obeysekera.

The judgement also stated that in adumbrating the evidence placed before Court that a reasonable doubt has been cerated as to the authenticity or genuineness of the signatures appearing in the document marked P31-P32 and P33.Nevertheless in fairness to the prosecution the Court has called for the defence although an application was made on behalf of the accused to for an acquittal in terms of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Pursuant to the order rejecting the above application the accused opted to make a dock statement accordingly.

It was held in the case of Sugathadasa vs. Republic (19770 78 NLR -495) that it was settled law that an unsworn statement from the dock was evidence in the case, though not of the same cogency as sworn evidence and that, that law had not abolished this right of the accused to make an unsworn statement.’ (Emphasis added).

In considering the above statements of the accused it is apparent that the late Mr. Obeysekera would have donated the said property to the second and third accused. Further the above statements of the accused had also created a reasonable doubt as to the execution of the alleged deed.