006-NLR-NLR-V-78-R.-G.-W.-APPUHAMY-Accused-Appellant-and-THE-REPUBLIC-OF-SRILANKA.pdf
25
SIRIMANE, J.—Appuhamy v. The Republic of Sri Lanka
Present: Sirimane, J., Wijesundera, J. and Ratwatte, J.
R. G. W. APPUHAMY, Accused-Appellant and THE REPUBLIC
OF SRI LANKA
S. C. 50/74—H. C. Ratnapura 753/73
Criminal Law—plea of self-defence by one of the accused-effect ofacquittal of co-accused.
Where the 1st accused admitted the shooting and pleadedself-defence and the Trial Judge had not mentioned to the Jurywhat the position would be in the event of their deciding to acquitthe 2nd and 3rd accused and what bearing such acquittal will haveon the evidence led against the 1st accused—
Held : It was for the 1st accused to satisfy the Jury on a balanceof probability that his version was the more probable one; Theacquittal of the 2nd and 3rd accused, as the evidence led againstthem was considered insufficient or disbelieved, would have noeffect on the 1st accused since the case for the 1st accused has tobe considered on the footing of his admission of the shooting andon his plea of self-defence.
Appeal against a conviction at a trial before the HighCourt, Ratnapura.
Mrs. Manouri Muttetuwegama, for the accused-appellant.
T. Marapana, State Counsel for the State.
May 19th, 1975. Sirimane, J.
The appellant was convicted on two counts of murder andsentenced to death.
We have examined the written submissions of learned counselfor the accused-appellant and also heard counsel on thosesubmissions. She has urged that the learned Trial Judge has notmentioned to the Jury what the position would be in the eventof their deciding to acquit the 2nd and the 3rd accused and whatbearing such an acquittal will have on the evidence led againstthe 1st accused.
It must be remembered that the 1st accused in this caseadmitted the shooting and pleaded self-defence. The versiongiven by the 1st accused was placed before the Jury and it wasfor the 1st accused to satisfy the Jury on a balance of probabilitythat his version was the more probable. The Jury, however,rejected that version. In these circumstances the fact that the2nd and the 3rd accused were acquitted, as the evidence ledagainst them was considered insufficient or disbelieved, wouldhave no effect on the 1st accused since the case for the 1st accusedhad to be considered on the footing of his admission of the shoot-ing and on his plea of self-defence. We do not see any reason tointerfere with the verdict as the learned Trial Judge hasadequately dealt with all the other aspects of the case in hischarge.
r I#—A 19360.—3,250 (76/01)
26
SI RIM! AN E, J. —Pierie v. The Attorney-General
Learned counsel for the appellant also urged that the questionof knowledge had not been adequately put before the Juryrelating to the death of the woman, K. A. Lamahamy. On aconsideration of all the circumstances of this case, including thefact that a short while earlier to the shooting of the womanLamahamy the accused had shot her son, we do not think thatthere is any reason to interfere with the verdict on this account.
In the circumstances we affirm the verdict and dismiss theappeal.
Wijesundera, J.—I agree.
Ratwatte, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.