Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1985%20Vol.1-P1&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:22:30+00:00

Document:
WIMALARATNE, J., RANASINGHE, J. AND RODRIGO, J.
S.C. 2/84 - H.C. COLOMBO 692/79.
Article 138(1) of the Constitution.
without a jury, found guilty and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
admitting the visit of the deceased to her dispensary on 23.4.1973 denied any such visit on 22.4.1973.
is illegal and cannot be justified.
must come from an independent source and not circuitously, as here, from the deceased herself.
appellant that the deceased visited her in her dispensary on 22.4.1973 cannot be regarded as corroboration.
determined according to section 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.
(1) The King v. Asirvadan Nadar (1950) ,51 NLR 322, 325.
(2) Mendis v. Paramaswami (1958) 62 NLR 302, 305.
(3) B. F. Lewis Fernando v. The Queen (1952) 54 NLR 274, 277, 278.
(4) The Queen v. Anthonypillai (1965) 69 NLR 34, 38.
(5) The King v. Atukorale (1948) 50 NLR 256.
(7) Karunaratne v. The Queen (1966) 68 NLR 257, 259.
(8) Dole v. Romanis Appu (1939) 40 NLR 449.
(9) Tennekoon v. Tennekoon 78 NLR 13.
(10) Warawita v. Jane Nona (1954) 58 NLR 111.
(11) Dharmadasa v. Gunawathy (1957) 59 NLR 501.
(12) Somasena v. Kusumawathie (1958) 60 NLR 355.
(13) Indrawathie Kumarihamy v. Purijjala (1970) 74 NLR 430.
(14) J. F. Throne and Others (1978) 66 Cr. Ap. R60.6.
(15) The King v. Fernando (1930) 32 NLR 250, 253.
(16) Martin Fernando v. The Inspector of Police, Minuwangode (1945) 46 NLR 210.
(17) The King v. Guneratne 14 C.L.Rec. 144.
(18) Sangarakkita Thero et al v. Buddharakkita Thero (1949) 39 CLW 86.
(19) Perera v. Naganathan (1964) 66 NLR 438.
(20) Hamid v. Karthan (1917) 4 CWR 363.
(21) The King v. Soysa (1924) 26 NLR 324.
(22) R. v. Cooray (1926) 28 NLR 74.
(23) Inspector of Police, Gampaha v. Perera (1931) 33 NLR 69.
(24) Paulis Appu v. Don Davith (1930) 32 NLR 335.
(25) Bartholomeusz v. Velu (1931) 33 NLR 161.
(26) S.I.P. v. Thalagahagoda 13 CLRec 211.
(27) Kitnapulle v. Christoffelz (1948) 49 NLR 401.
(28) Reg v. Arthur Perera (1956) 57 NLR 313, 326.
Dr. Colvin R. de Silva with Miss. Saumya de Silva for accused-appellant.
D. P. Kumarasinghe, S.S.C. for respondent.
suffering from septic abortion. Parts of a foetus had also been removed from the deceased by Dr. (Miss)Panchchalingam.Dr.
had started to bleed as a result of a fall near the well. No reference had been made in that reply to an abortion.
Thereafter on the following day, 24.4.73, as the deceased's condition had taken a turn to theworse,Dr.Ranjithrajahad.
Hospital, she decided to seek treatment from the Hospital.
produced at the trial marked P1. The cause of death has been set out as "septicaemia following septic abortion".
The accused-appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeal having failed, the accused-appellant has now come before this Court.
which brought about the death of the deceased.
which is admissible under sec. 32 (1) of the Evidence Ordinance.
by the then Supreme Court of this island in several decisions : The King v. Asirvadan Nadar (1), Mendis v. Paramaswami (2).
misdirected himself on this particular matter. Although the Court of Appeal took the view that the evidentiary valueofDr.
Court of Appeal, however, was also of the view that the contradiction, as between D 2 and thedeceased'sstatementtoDr.
proved, considered as truthful evidence. The matter, on which there was a conflict between the deceased'sstatementtoDr.
(Mrs.) Waas and each of the other statements D 1 and P2, was thus a matter of importance. However "human andunderstandable"
evidence given by her at' the earlier stage of these proceedings in the Magistrate's Court.
had been made to the accused-appellant having being in any way responsible for her condition.
(supra) 8. F. Lewis Fernando v. The Queen (3)The Queen v. Anthonypillai (4).
necessary to consider the question of how far there was corroboration of the said statement of the deceased.
the first time in this connection on 22.4.73 at the accused-appellant's dispensary in Etul-kotte.
husband after they had set out from the deceased's home, on the afternoon of the 23rd ofApril1973 togotohospital.
husband as to where the deceased should go and that in the course of such discussion, the deceased toldherhusband"
accepted as corroboration -must give Way to the other authoritative decisions referred to by me.
stated earlier, however arise in this case.
the principal submission, referred to earlier, made to this Court on behalf of the accused-appellant.
by the Supreme Court, of this Island -vide : Warawita v. Jane.Nona(10) Dharmadasav.Gunawathy(11) Somasenav.
Kusumawathie (12),Indrawathie Kumarihamy v. Purijjala (13),Tennekoon v. Tennekoon (supra).
Court stated at p. 18.
the statement, which requires to be strengthened, itself being used to provide the material to be used to sostrengthenit.
on 22.4.73, must first be established by other independent evidence which does not issue. forth fromthedeceasedherself.
and, on the other, a statement made in court under oath by the accused-appellant repudiating the. deceased's saidassertion.
between the. deceased and her husband is also only material furnished- by the deceased herself) tosupportwhatshesays.
Fernando v. The Inspector of Police, Minuwangoda (16)The King v. Guneratne etal.(17) SangarakkitaTheroetal.v.
law, alone and uncorroborated, in regard to the identity of the offender.
Constitution should prevail: ' "
according to the provisions of sec. 335 of the said Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.
the Court of Appeal- be drawn as a precedent for the future.
Kitnapulle v. Christoffelz (27), and the unreported cases : S. C. 128-129 M. C. Kalmunai 7003, S. C. M. 15. 10. 63 S.C.
Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 79, then the procedure so adopted by the learned trial judge could not have beenjustified.
RODRlGO, J. - I agree.
Appeal allowed and accused acquitted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.