COLOMBO, 31 August 2026 – The Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka today delivered a pivotal judgment, dismissing the appeals of Ethige Ravisan Nulantha Silva alias Ethige Radisan Silva and Mahamesthrige Priyantha Ajith Jayaratne, thereby affirming their convictions and death sentences for the murder of Morris Paul Fernando in Ragama on 8 May 2002. The landmark decision, detailed in the judgment of CA/HCC/0249-250/2023, reinforces the findings of the Gampaha High Court.
Background to the High Court Proceedings
The case originated from a 2004 indictment (HC/283/2004) in the High Court of Gampaha, where five individuals were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and committing the murder of Morris Paul Fernando. The High Court trial, conducted without a jury, saw the charges proceed against only two of the initial five accused, namely Ethige Ravisan Nulantha Silva (3rd Accused) and Mahamesthrige Priyantha Ajith Jayaratne (5th Accused), as the 1st, 2nd, and 4th accused were reported deceased prior to or during the trial.
The High Court Judge, on 27 September 2023, found both appellants guilty on two counts: forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing injuries (Section 140 of the Penal Code) and committing the murder of Morris Paul Fernando (Section 146 read with Section 296 of the Penal Code, and Section 32 read with Section 296 of the Penal Code). Consequently, the appellants were sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the first count and the death penalty for the second count.
Appellants’ Grounds for Appeal
Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, the two appellants sought redress from the Court of Appeal. The 3rd Appellant, Ethige Ravisan Nulantha Silva, raised several grounds, including that his identity was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, that the High Court Judge misdirected facts regarding witness identification, and that crucial contradictions in evidence (V8) were disregarded.
The 5th Appellant, Mahamesthrige Priyantha Ajith Jayaratne, contended that the prosecution witnesses lacked credibility, that the charges of unlawful assembly were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the High Court Judge unreasonably rejected the defence evidence.
Court of Appeal’s Meticulous Review
The appeal was argued before Justices P. Kumararatnam and Pradeep Hettiarachchi on 10 March 2026 and 31 March 2026. Representing the 1st Accused-Appellant was Rienzie Arsecularatne, PC, with Chamindri Arsecularatne, while Neranjan Jayasinghe, with Randunu Heellage and Pravindika Kularathna, appeared for the 2nd Accused-Appellant. Shanil Kularatne, ASG, represented the Respondent (Hon. Attorney General).
Identification and Witness Credibility
In addressing the identity of the 3rd Accused-Appellant, the Court of Appeal found that key prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW3) had sufficient opportunity to observe and identify him, noting he was not a stranger to the deceased. The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, especially in traumatic events like a brutal attack, do not necessarily undermine their overall credibility. Citing precedents such as Mohamed Niyas Naufer and others vs. Attorney General and State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr., Justice Pradeep Hettiarachchi highlighted that “normal discrepancies” due to errors of observation, memory lapse, or shock are expected and do not render evidence unsafe.
The Court also dismissed the argument regarding PW1’s inability to identify the weapon eight years after the incident, deeming it a reasonable outcome given the significant lapse of time. Furthermore, the alleged contradictions, particularly V8, were deemed to have diminished evidentiary value due to the defence’s failure to follow proper procedure during cross-examination and proof.
Unlawful Assembly and Burden of Proof
A significant portion of the appeal centered on the prosecution’s burden to prove the existence and constitution of an unlawful assembly. Citing Section 138 and 139 of the Penal Code and cases like Kulathunga Vs. Mudalihami and Andrayes v. The Queen, the Court affirmed that the prosecution had sufficiently established the active participation of five persons in the assault, acting in furtherance of a common object to cause injuries leading to death.
The appellants also contended that the High Court Judge reversed the burden of proof by stating that witnesses would have no reason to testify against them if the deceased hadn’t been killed by the accused. While acknowledging that the wording was “not the most appropriate,” the Court of Appeal found that this observation did not cause “substantial prejudice” or “a miscarriage of justice,” given the overwhelming strength of the prosecution evidence. The Court referenced Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and Article 138 of the Constitution, which emphasize that errors or irregularities that do not prejudice substantial rights should not lead to the overturning of judgments.
Appellate Court’s Stance on Trial Judge’s Findings
The Court of Appeal reiterated its established position of being slow to interfere with the primary factual findings and credibility assessments of a trial judge who has had the benefit of hearing and observing witnesses. Precedents like Alwis vs. Piyasena Fernando, Dharmasiri vs. Republic of Sri Lanka, and Ariyadasa V. Attorney General were cited to underscore this principle, asserting that such findings are not to be lightly disturbed unless “manifestly wrong.”
Verdict: Appeals Dismissed, Convictions Affirmed
Based on a comprehensive review of the evidence, grounds of appeal, and legal principles, the Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Learned High Court Judge. The Court affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeals of Ethige Ravisan Nulantha Silva alias Ethige Radisan Silva and Mahamesthrige Priyantha Ajith Jayaratne.
This decision underscores the Sri Lankan justice system’s commitment to upholding convictions based on strong evidence, even in cases with minor procedural or testimonial discrepancies, provided they do not cause a failure of justice or substantial prejudice to the accused. The judgment serves as a significant reaffirmation of judicial processes and evidentiary standards in serious criminal cases.
Source: Read original document