060-NLR-NLR-V-43-SOPIYA-v.-WILBERT.pdf
238
WIJEYEWARDENE J.—Sopiya v. Wilbert.
1942Present: Wijeyew'ardene J.
SOPIYA v. WILBERT.
742—M. C. Avissawella, 23,365.
Confession to Police Officer—Maintenance proceedings—Statement by respon-dent to Police Officer—Evidence Ordinance, s. 25.
A confession made to a Police Officer by the respondent to maintenanceproceedings is not obnoxious to section 25 of the'Evidence Ordinance.
^^PPEAL from an order of the Magistrate of Avissawella.
Sylvan E. J. Fernando for the defendant, appellant.
J. M. Jayamanne (with him M. D. H. Jay aw ar dene) for theplaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult. ,
January 15, 1942. Wijeyewardene J—
This is an action-for .the maintenance of an illegitimate child.
The applicant stated that the respondent seduced her about a yearbefore the birth of the child and had intercourse with her on severaloccasions thereafter: She stated that when she "became pregnant, herparents arraniged to give her in marriage to a man called Nadoris, butthe respondent informed Nadoris about her condition and thus preventedthe marriage between her and Nadoris. Her parents complained to thePolice against the respondent for preventing the marriage and the Policeheld an inquiry at which the respondent was present. According to therecord made by the Police Officer of the statements made by the parties,
239
WIJEYEWARDENE J.—de Silva v. Dalpatadu.
the respondent has stated, “It is true that she is pregnant for me.”At the trial the applicant gave evidence stating that the. respondent wasthe father of the child and called as her witness the Police Officer whorecorded the statement of the respondent at the inquiry held by thePolice. The Police Officer testifies to the correctness of the record andstated that the statement was made voluntarily by the respondent. Therespondent admitted having made the statement to the Police Officerbut said that he was compelled by force to make that statement. TheMagistrate has held that the respondent’s statement was not madeunder any compulsion, and I see no reason for disagreeing with the1Magistrate.
It was argued in appeal that the statement made by the accused, to thePolice Officer was not admissible in evidence. If that contention is soundand the evidence in question is rejected the applicant’s claim necessarilyfails as there would then be no corroborative evidence as required bysection 6 of the Maintenance Ordinance (Legislative Enactments, Vol. II.,Chapter 76). The Counsel lor the appellant relied on Sinnatangam v.Silva That authority has no application to the present case. In thecase of Sinnatangam v. Silva the applicant sought to corroborate herevidence by a previous statement made by her at an inquiry by the Policeon a complaint made to the police that the applicant was taking stepsto procure an abortion. It was there held that in view of section 157of the Evidence Ordinance the statement could not be admitted as thequestion of paternity was not a fact which the Police were legallycompetent to investigate at the inquiry held by them.
Here the applicant seeks to corroborate her evidence by a statementmade by the respondent to the Police and the admissibility of that state-ment cannot be affected by the provisions of section 157 of the EvidenceOrdinance.
, If was also argued that the statement was inadmissible on the groundthat it was obnoxious to section 25 of the Evidence Ordinance. I thinkthat contention too it not sustainable. The proceedings under theMaintenance Ordinance are of a civil nature (Jane Nona v. Van Twest‘)and therefore the respondent in a maintenance case cannot be regardedas “ a person accused of any offence ” within the meeting of section 25
of the Evidence Ordinance.'
I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.