COLOMBO – 01 September 2026 – In a significant ruling upholding fundamental fair trial principles, the Sri Lankan Court of Appeal today ordered a fresh trial for Stanley Sritharan, also known as Stalin Sriragan or Kutty, who was previously convicted and sentenced to death for murder by the High Court of Jaffna. The unanimous decision, delivered by Justices P. Kumararatnam and R. P. Hettiarachchi, found that critical procedural defects had rendered the original trial unfair.
Background to the High Court Proceedings
Stanley Sritharan was indicted for the murder of Sritharan Shanthini, an offence punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code, allegedly committed on 20 June 2015. Following a trial, the High Court Judge found the Appellant guilty of the charge and sentenced him to death on 19 June 2024. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, Sritharan lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal under Case No. CA/HCC/0005/2025.
The prosecution’s case hinged largely on the testimony of PW1 Annaluxmi, the deceased’s mother, who claimed to have witnessed the Appellant (her son-in-law) pouring kerosene and setting fire to her daughter. A dying declaration made by the deceased to a doctor and recorded by PC 81448 Terrance (PW6) was also part of the evidence. The post-mortem examination confirmed death due to extensive thermal burn and inhalational injuries. The Appellant, via a dock statement, denied the charges.
Key Grounds of Appeal
Counsel for the Appellant, Ershan Ariyaratnam, raised several grounds of appeal, including concerns over the credibility of PW1, the reliability of the dying declaration, evaluation of circumstantial evidence, and the fairness in rejecting the defence case. However, the most strenuously argued point, and ultimately the decisive one for the Court of Appeal, centered on severe procedural irregularities during the High Court trial. Nishanth Nagaratnam, Senior Counsel, represented the Respondent (Hon. Attorney General).
Court of Appeal’s Scrutiny of Procedural Fairness
The Court of Appeal’s judgment highlighted a series of grave omissions that fundamentally undermined the fairness of the trial. It was contended that the Appellant was not properly arraigned, meaning the charge was not read to him at the outset, and crucially, he was never offered the option of a trial by jury.
Justice Kumararatnam, writing the lead judgment, noted that although the indictment was served on 20 February 2020, it was not read to the Appellant until the very end of the trial, just before judgment delivery. Even then, following an application by the State Counsel to amend the indictment to include the Appellant’s alias names, and after the amended indictment was read, the vital jury option was still not extended to him.
The Court underscored the paramount importance of the jury option in Sri Lankan criminal law, particularly for serious offences heard in the High Court. Referencing established precedents, Justice Kumararatnam cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Attorney General v Segulebbe Latheef and Another [2008] 1 SLR 225, which unequivocally stated that “Non observance of this procedure is an illegality and not a mere irregularity.” Furthermore, the judgment in Jayasooriya and others v AG [2009] 1 SLR 101 was invoked, emphasizing that “To ensure a fair trial, the legislature in its wisdom from time to time has promulgated several fundamental concepts and statutory duties into our criminal law, the offering of the jury option is one such concept.”
A Mandate for Retrial
Considering these grave omissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that the failure to offer the jury option constituted a “serious omission” and a “fatal procedural defect.” Such defects, the Court noted, are not minor technicalities but can void the entire trial process. Guided by the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal determined that a retrial was the appropriate course of action to ensure justice and adherence to due process.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Registrar of the Court of Appeal has been directed to send the judgment along with the original case record back to the High Court of Jaffna for a fresh trial. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring that all criminal proceedings strictly adhere to statutory requirements and principles of a fair trial.
Source: Read original document