Colombo, Sri Lanka – August 31, 2026 – The Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka today dismissed a revision application filed by Munasinghe Arachchige Shiran Dhanushka Madhuranga, who sought to overturn his 2023 rape conviction and sentencing by the High Court of Embilipitiya. The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Amal Ranaraja and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, cited the petitioner’s inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the application, alongside finding no “exceptional circumstances” to warrant revision.
Background to the Conviction
Madhuranga was convicted in High Court of Embilipitiya Case No. HCE 52/2020. The indictment charged him with committing rape against Kaluaarachchige Shiromika Madhushani on or around November 4, 2016, in Suriyaara, an offence punishable under Section 364(1) of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 22 of 1995. Following the trial, Madhuranga was sentenced on September 12, 2023, to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, with an additional 6 months simple imprisonment in default. He was also directed to pay Rs. 250,000 as compensation to the victim, with a default term of 1 year rigorous imprisonment.
Revision Application Filed After Significant Delay
Instead of filing a direct appeal to the appropriate forum, Madhuranga filed the revision application with the Court of Appeal on June 9, 2025 – approximately twenty months after his conviction and sentencing. The Court underscored the critical importance of timely applications, noting that courts are generally reluctant to entertain applications filed after excessive delays. This principle, the Court explained, serves to ensure the efficiency of the judicial system and uphold the finality of judgments.
Justice Amal Ranaraja, delivering the Order, emphasized that the petitioner provided no satisfactory or cogent explanation for the prolonged delay. The Court referenced the precedent set in Rajakumar v Hatton National Bank Ltd. (2007) 2 SLR 1, where Sisira de Abrew, J. held that “Revision being a discretionary remedy is not available to those who sleep over their rights.” The Court concluded that Madhuranga had not been diligent in pursuing his application and had “effectively been sleeping over his rights,” making the application liable for dismissal on this ground alone.
Court Upholds Original Findings and Definition of Rape
Despite the dismissal primarily on procedural grounds, the Court of Appeal also briefly addressed the merits, affirming the cogency and sustainability of the High Court’s findings. The Court noted that the victim (PW01) maintained a consistent narrative throughout the investigation and trial, stating that intercourse occurred against her will. Medical evidence, provided by Dr. K.M. Mahasen, a consultant Judicial Medical Officer, also supported the account, indicating findings consistent with inter-labial penetration.
The Court reiterated that inter-labial penetration is legally and medically classified as rape. It cited Perera Vs. The Attorney General (2012) 1 SLR 69, which referenced Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy’s expert medical opinion stating, “The slightest penetration of the penis within the vulva, such as the minimal passage of glands between the labia or with or without the emission of semen or rupture of hymen constitutes rape. There need not be a completed act of intercourse.”
Furthermore, the Court pointed out inconsistencies in Madhuranga’s defence, where he denied sexual intercourse in his dock statement but earlier suggested during cross-examination that intercourse had occurred with consent. The High Court Judge was commended for taking a holistic approach to the evidence, refusing to compartmentalize pieces in a vacuum.
No “Exceptional Circumstances” Found
The Court reiterated that revisionary jurisdiction under Article 138 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy invoked only in “exceptional circumstances.” These circumstances are typically defined as:
- An obvious or clear miscarriage of justice
- A plain error of law apparent on the face of the record
- A jurisdictional defect that renders the disputed judgment or order void
Given the preceding discussion, the Court found the disputed judgment to be legal and that the petitioner had failed to establish any such exceptional circumstance.
The application was accordingly dismissed, with no order made on costs. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal has been directed to send a copy of this Order to the High Court of Embilipitiya for reference.
Counsel Rajinda Kandagedara appeared for the Accused-Petitioner, while Riyaz Bary, D.S.G., represented the State.
Source: Read original document