Colombo, Sri Lanka – 31 August 2026 – The Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka has today affirmed the conviction and sentencing of Walawwaththe Gedara Mahinda Gunawansa, also known as ‘Kiri Mama’, dismissing his appeal against a High Court judgment that found him guilty of grave sexual abuse and rape of a minor. The landmark judgment, delivered by Justices Amal Ranaraja and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against heinous crimes targeting children.
Background to the High Court Proceedings
The case, filed as CA/HCC 0026/2026 in the Court of Appeal, originated from the High Court of Matale (Case No. MT/HC/130/2019). Walawwaththe Gedara Mahinda Gunawansa was indicted on five charges related to incidents that occurred on or around March 1, 2014, in Ovilikanda, involving a 13-year-old victim, Epita Gedara Madhavi Nisansala Ratnasuriya.
The charges included:
- Sexual harassment by kissing the victim’s face.
- Sexual harassment by kissing the victim’s breasts, punishable under Section 345 of the Penal Code.
- Grave Sexual Abuse by licking the victim’s female genitalia (under 16), punishable under Section 365B (2)(b) of the Penal Code.
- Grave Sexual Abuse by inserting a finger into the victim’s female genitalia (under 16), punishable under Section 365B (2)(b) of the Penal Code.
- Rape of a minor under 16, punishable under Section 364(2)(e) of the Penal Code.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Matale High Court Judge convicted Gunawansa on the second, fourth, and fifth charges, while acquitting him of the first and third. He was subsequently handed down a series of rigorous imprisonment sentences: 6 months for sexual harassment (kissing breasts), 8 years for grave sexual abuse (finger insertion), and 14 years for rape. The High Court also imposed fines of Rs. 5,000 for each conviction and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 500,000 as compensation to the victim, with substantial terms of imprisonment directed to run consecutively.
Grounds for Appeal and Court of Appeal’s Examination
Aggrieved by the conviction, judgment, and sentencing order, the appellant, represented by Mohan Weerakon, PC, with Sandamali Pieris, lodged an appeal. The primary grounds of appeal argued that the High Court Judge had not properly analyzed or assessed the evidence, that the victim’s (PW01) evidence was vague and not cogent, and that the medical evidence did not support the charges.
However, the Court of Appeal meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The prosecution, represented by Akila Dalpatadu, SC, maintained the validity of the High Court’s findings. The Court noted that PW01, being a neighbour and acquaintance of the appellant through her father, had ample opportunity to identify him and consistently referred to him as ‘Kiri Mama’ throughout the investigation and trial, negating any doubt regarding identification.
A crucial aspect of the Court’s deliberation focused on the medical evidence. Dr. D.L. Waidyaratne, Consultant Judicial Medical Officer, had noted “features suggestive of chronic intra-labial penetration” in his medicolegal report. The Court reaffirmed that, both legally and medically, intra-labial penetration constitutes rape, citing precedents like Perera Vs. The Attorney General (2012) 1 SLR 69, which clarifies that even minimal penetration within the vulva, or between the labia, without deep entry or hymenal rupture, is recognized as consummated rape.
Addressing Alleged Contradictions and Date of Offence
The appellant also raised concerns about alleged contradictions in witness testimony and the exact date of the offence. The Court of Appeal, referencing Section 165(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and cases such as Maarukku Kankanamalage Anura Kumarasiri Vs. The Attorney General CA/0036/2020 and R. Vs. Dossi 12 Cr. App. R. 158, reiterated that establishing the exact date of an offence is not always essential, provided the defence is not prejudiced and the core elements are proven within a reasonable timeframe. The Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the incidents occurred “on or about October 1st, 2014,” with the complaint lodged on October 5th, 2014.
Furthermore, the Court dismissed the alleged contradictions as relating to “peripheral factual details,” such as whether PW01 attended school on the incident day or the precise time the appellant arrived. Citing Mahathun and Others Vs. The Attorney General [2015] 1 SLR 74 and Best Footwear (Pvt) Ltd., and Two Others Vs. Aboosally (1997) 2 SLR 137, the Justices emphasized that minor discrepancies do not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case or the credibility of the key account when a witness is consistent on material facts.
The testimony of PW02, the victim’s grandfather, despite his advanced age and disabilities, provided corroborative evidence, having witnessed aspects of the sexual abuse, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.
Judgment Affirmed and Appeal Dismissed
After a comprehensive review of all evidence and legal arguments, the Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court Judge had carefully evaluated the evidence, applied the correct methodology, and arrived at findings that were both cogent and sustainable. The Court found no inclination to interfere with the conviction, the disputed judgment, or the sentencing order.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s judgment and sentencing were affirmed. The Court directed that the substantive terms of imprisonment shall commence from the date this judgment is read and explained to Walawwaththe Gedara Mahinda Gunawansa by the High Court Judge in Matale.
This ruling reinforces the robust legal framework in Sri Lanka aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals and ensuring justice for victims of sexual offences.
Source: Read original document