051-NLR-NLR-V-52-PONNAMBALAM-et-al.-Appellants-and-THE-KING-Respondent.pdf
[Court of Criminal Appeal]
1950 Present: Jayatileke C.J. (President), Gratiaen J. and Pulle J.POXNAMBALAM et al., Appellants, and THE KING,Respondent
Appeals 49-50 with Applications 92-93 of 1950S. C. 16—ill. C. Jaffna, 18,500
Court of Criminal Appeal—Evidence—Two accused charged with murder—-Absenceof proof of pre-arranged plan—Liability of one accused for injuries causedby the other.,
The two appellants were convicted of murder. The convictions were basedon the evidence of a witness who said that the deceased told him that thetwo appellants stabbed him. The medical evidence showed that the deceasedhad two stab injuries one of which was necessarily fatal and the other sufficientin the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On the deceased’s statementit was not possible to say whieh injury was caused by each appellant.
Held, that, in the absence of evidence of a pre-arranged plan on the partof the appellants to inflict the injuries on the deceased, the appellants couldonly be convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
A.PPEALS, with applications for leave to appeal, against two con-victions in a trial before a Judge and Jury.
M. M. Kumardhulasingham, with K. A. P. Rajdkaruna, for the accusedappellants.•
H. A. Wijemanne, Crown Counsel, with* A. Mahendarajah, CrownCounsel, for the Crown..
November 17, 1950. Jayetileke C. J.—’
The appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
The case for the prosecution rested on the evidence of one Sinnanand on-a statement alleged to have been made by the deceased to oneAndy Arumugam. The learned Judge in his summing-up indicatedto the jury that the evidence of Sinnan was unreliable and that it wouldnot be safe for them to base their verdict upon it. We do not knowwhat viewthe jury took of Sinnan’sevidence but in viewof the obser-vations madeby the learned Judgeit would be safe toassume that
they did not act on it. Andy Arumugam said that the deceased toldhim that Ponnambalam, the son of Kidnar, and Kanagasabai, the sonof Ponnu, stabbed him. The medical evidence shows that the deceasedhad two stab injuries one of which was necessarily fatal and the othersufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On thedeceased’s statement it is not possible to say which injury was causedby each appellant. The verdict indicates that the jury held eachappellant responsible for the acts of the other. They could have doneso only if there was evidence of a pre-arranged plan on the part of theappellantstoinflict the injuries onthe deceased. Therewas no such
evidence.Inthe circumstances weare of opinion that the conviction
Conviction altered.
must be set aside and the appellants convicted of voluntarily causinggrievous hurt. We would sentence each of the appellants to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.