Appeal Court sets aside death sentence

Wasantha Ramanayake

COLOMBO: The Appeal Court recently set aside the conviction and death sentence in a murder appeal by a brother and sister who had stabbed one of their neighbours to death.

The court substituted a conviction of culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the basis of a sudden fight and imposed a sentence of 1 years RI on the first accused-appellant, the brother, K. Navapala Chandran of Balangoda and 10 years RI on the sister, K. Mangaleswari, who had given the knife to her brother to stab their neighbour in the sudden fight.

The Court observed that although the capability of the sister was less, it could not however, disregard the fact that being a female she had given the knife to her brother and accordingly imposed a 10 years RI on her. Delivering the judgement, Justice Sisira de Abrew, agreed by Justice W.L.R. Silva, observed that the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced to death upon an unanimous decision of the Jury.

Justice de Abrew noted that the counsel for appellant had submitted that there had been a mis-direction by the trial judge on the defence of sudden fight and had contended that trial judge had taken away the defence of the sudden fight from the consideration of the jury.

The court also noted that the counsel had argued that the trial judge had wrongfully addressed the jury that the defence of sudden fight was not applicable in this case. The court was of the opinion that the trial judge had so withdrawn the defence of the “sudden fight” from the consideration of the jury and accordingly held with the appellant’s counsel that it was a clear misdirection given to the jury by the trial judge.

The court also held with the counsel for the appellants that the impression given to the jury by the trial judge that three stab injuries inflicted on the deceased could not be considered under the grave and sudden provocation but a single injury, was wrongful.

“In our opinion, this direction does violence to the law,” the court held.

Justice de Abrew noted that the Senior State Counsel (SSC) who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General also conceded them were to be misdirections.”

Senior State Counsel who appears for the Attorney General, upholding the best traditions of the Department concedes that these directions given by under the defence of sudden fight and the defence of grave and sudden provocation amount to misdirections,” he observed.

The court accordingly held that the verdict of murder returned by the jury could not be permitted to stand.

“In our view, if the jury was properly directed on the defence of sudden fight, the jury would have returned a verdict of culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the basis of sudden fight since there was evidence of a sudden fight among them.”

The court accordingly set aside the conviction and death sentence substituted a conviction of culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the basis of a sudden fight. Dr. Ranjit Fernando appeared for the accuse-appellants. SSG Haripriya Jayasundara appeared for the AG.