Colombo, Sri Lanka – 11 September 2026 – The Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka today delivered a pivotal judgment, dismissing the appeal of Ranabahuge Nilanka alias Ranabanuge Nilanga and affirming his conviction and 15-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for the incestuous statutory rape of his biological daughter. The judgment, delivered by Justices Amal Ranaraja and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, underscores the judiciary’s unwavering commitment to protecting vulnerable victims and upholding justice.
The case, heard under Court of Appeal Case No. CA/HCC/0290/2025, originated from the High Court of Hambantota (HCC/83/2021) where the Accused-Appellant, Ranabahuge Nilanka, was indicted for three counts of incestuous statutory rape committed between 01 October 2018 and 31 October 2018. The offences are punishable under Section 364(3) of the Penal Code.
Background to the Conviction
Following a contested trial, the High Court of Hambantota, on 16 July 2025, convicted Ranabahuge Nilanka on Count 1 for raping his biological daughter, while acquitting him on Counts 2 and 3. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment, imposed a fine of LKR 10,000, and ordered LKR 400,000 as compensation to the victim, with an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment for each default.
The prosecution’s case largely relied on the testimony of the victim (PW 01), her step-sister (PW 03), the investigating officer WSI Amitha (PW 04), and the Judicial Medical Officer (PW 08). The victim’s account detailed three separate instances of abuse by her father at their home in Badhagiriya. After an eight-month delay, which the victim attributed to shame and fear of her father, she disclosed the incidents to her step-sister, leading to formal complaints and police action.
Grounds for Appeal
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Accused-Appellant, represented by Counsel Dhanusha Rahubadda, lodged an appeal based on several grounds:
- Failure of the Prosecution to establish the precise date/time period of the offence.
- The High Court Judge’s alleged failure to recognise improbabilities in the victim’s testimony (PW 01).
- Claims that important aspects of PW 01’s evidence were elicited through leading questions.
- Concerns regarding the High Court Judge’s analysis of the Accused’s unsworn dock statement.
- The belatedness of the victim’s statement to authorities.
- Arguments that the medical report did not sufficiently support penetration, a key element of rape.
Court of Appeal’s Rulings and Affirmation
The bench, comprising Justices Amal Ranaraja and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, meticulously reviewed each ground of appeal, with Dr. Sumudu Premachandra J. delivering the lead judgment. The Court systematically dismissed all arguments:
On the Date/Time Period of the Offence:
The Court reiterated established legal precedent that the date of an offence is immaterial unless it forms an essential part of the charge, citing cases like R v Dossi and Director General of Commission to Investigate Allegation of Bribery or Corruption v. Punchi Banda and another. Given the prosecution provided a clear time period (01/10/2018 to 31/10/2018) and the Accused himself admitted the victim’s age at the time, no prejudice was found to have occurred. Section 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, which disregards errors in charges unless the accused was misled, was also referenced.
On the Improbability of the Victim’s Testimony:
The Appellant argued the implausibility of the events occurring on a shared bed without waking the brother. The Court, however, accepted the victim’s explanation of a large bed, her brother being fast asleep, and her mouth being squeezed by the father to prevent shouting. Citing Wickramasuriya v. Dedoleena and Others and Dharmasiri vs. Republic of Sri Lanka, the judgment affirmed that the credibility and probability of a witness’s testimony are primarily matters for the trial judge, whose findings should not be lightly disturbed unless manifestly wrong. The Court found no inherent improbability in the victim’s account.
On Leading Questions:
The Court noted that objections to leading questions must be raised contemporaneously during the trial. According to Sections 141 and 142 of the Evidence Ordinance, failure to object at the time constitutes a waiver. Therefore, this ground of appeal was deemed invalid.
On the Belatedness of the Statement:
Addressing the eight-month delay in reporting the incident, the Court referenced Sumanasena v. Attorney General, which states that a belated witness’s testimony should not be rejected if the reason for the delay is plausible and justifiable. Given the victim was 13 years old, under the custody of the 39-year-old Accused, and cited shame and fear, the Court found her explanation for the delay acceptable.
On Penetration and Medical Evidence:
Despite the JMO report stating the hymen was intact, the Court clarified that under Section 363 of the Penal Code, any degree of penetration, even minimal inter-labial contact, is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse for the offence of rape. Full penetration or rupture of the hymen is not required. Crucially, the Court highlighted a ‘suicidal question’ during cross-examination where PW01 explicitly affirmed that her father had inserted his penis into her sexual organ, thereby confirming penetration.
On the Dock Statement:
The Court acknowledged the Accused’s right to make an unsworn dock statement, as established in cases like Queen v. Buddharakkitha Thero and Queen v. Kularatne. However, it emphasized that such a statement must be considered against the prosecution’s evidence and not in isolation. The trial judge was found to have adequately considered the dock statement, and the Court found no miscarriage of justice despite the mother and brother not being called as witnesses by the prosecution, as material witnesses were presented.
Final Decision
In light of the detailed deliberations, the Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal lacked merit. The conviction and the original sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment were affirmed. The Court also ordered that the sentence shall run from the date of the original conviction, 16 July 2025, and confirmed that the fine and compensation orders remain unchanged.
This judgment serves as a significant legal precedent, reinforcing the principles of criminal justice in Sri Lanka, particularly concerning the evidentiary standards in cases of sexual abuse and the protection of child victims.
Source: Read original document