009-NLR-NLR-V-44-ADIHETTY-v.-SIRISENA.pdf
HEARNE J.—Adihetty v. Sirisena.
47.
1942Present: Hearne J.
ADIHETTY v. SIRISENA.
454-—M. C. Gampaha, 12,679.
Causing hurt—Denial of charge by accused—Defence of grave and suddenprovocation—Penal Code s. 315.
Where in a charge of hurt it appeared from the evidence that theaccused acted under grave and sudden provocation and where' theaccused denied that he inflicted the injury,—
;Held, that, in convicting the accused, the Magistrate was bound to
consider all the circumstances appearing in the evidence in which theinjury could have been inflicted.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate,. Gampaha.
A. Rajapakse for the accused, appellant.
H. T. Gunasekere, C.C., for the complainant, respondent.
• Cur adv. vult.
July 28, 1942. Hearne J.—
The accused was convicted of the* offence of having caused hurt toone Cornelis by stabbing him with a sword, an offence punishable undersection 315 of the Ceylon Penal Code. At the conclusion of his judgment,the Magistrate states thus :—“ Mr. Perera submits that the accused actedunder grave and sudden provocation. He says that from Somawathie’sevidence that Cornelis Perera rushed at the accused’s mother it wouldappear that there was provocation. But the accused denies that heinflicted the injury. _ Therfore this defence fails. ” The Magistrate haishere, I think, misdirected himself. Even if he found as he did and theaccused denied that he caused the injury with which he was charged, hemust still consider all the circumstances appearing in the evidence inwhich the injury could have been inflicted. In particular, he should have44/8
48'
HEARNE J.—Adihetty v. Sirisena.
taken into account the accused’s own evidence, the evidence of Soma-wathie that she saw Cornells rushing at the accused’s mother- and theevidence of the complainant himself in which he admitted that he hadrefused to give any share to the accused’s mother of a house of which shehad a f share. Having regard to all these circumstances and to the factthat the accused is a first offender and a young man of 20 years of age,I think a fine will meet the ends of justice in this case. I, therefore,sentence the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 25 or one month’s rigorousimprisonment in default.
Sentence reduced.