035-NLR-NLR-V-73-W.-P.-PIYADASA-Appellant-and-THE-QUEEN-Respondent.pdf
Piyadasa v. The Queen
209
[Court of Criminal Appeal]
Present: Sirimane, J. (President), Samerawlckrame, J.,and Wijayatilake, J.
W. P. PIYADASA, Appellant, and THE QUEEN, RespondentO. C. A. CO of 1969, with Application 83. S. C. 54/196S—21. C. Tangalle, 39587
Court of Criminal Appeal—Powers of Court in special eases—Court of Criminal
Appeal Ordinance, s. 6 {»).
Tho nccused-oppellnnt was convicted of murder. Although the plea ofinsanity was not raised at tho trial, the circumstances disclosed in the ovidonceindicated that tho killing had been dono by a person of unsound mind.
Held, that it was open to the Court of Criminal Appeal to cause the accused tobo subjected to psychiatric examination and, if necessary, to quash the sentencein terms of section 6 (4) of the Court of Criminal Appeal Ordinance.
210
SIHIMANE, J.—Piyadeisa v. The Queen
ApPEAL against a conviction at a trial before the Supreme Court.
G. E. Chilly, Q.C., with Michael Wanniappa, M. A. Man soar and
K.Kanag-lsicaran (assigned), for the accused-appellant-.
S. A. Pullenayegum, Senior Crown Counsel, with Kosala Wijaya-tilake, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
Car. ady. wit.
November 24, 19G9. Sikimaxb, J.—
Tho appellant who was about IS years, of ago at the time of thisincident had indicted eleven stab wounds on a six-year old girl.'*’ Shehad not been molested, ancl the killing was purposeless and withoutreason.
•-i-J-V.
Though the plea of insanity was not raised at tho trial, .the, circum^stanccs disclosed in the evidence indicated that the killing had been doneby a person of unsound mind. Had these circumstances struck the trialJudge in the same maimer as they did this Court, he may very well havedirect oil the Jury to consider the question whether the .appellant was ofunsound mind when he committed this act.
When this appeal first came up for hearing, as it appeared thatthere might have been a miscarriage of justice when the appellant wassentenced to death on being found guilty on the capital charge, thisCourt adopted the somewhat unusual procedure of placing the appellantunder observation at the Mental Hospital, and directed that, he besubjected to psychiatric examination. The hearing of the appeal wasadjourned./
The report of the Board of Psj’chiatrists now before us, clearly, showsthat it is most probable that the appellant was of unsound mind When he 1committed the act.
. The learned Senior Crown Counsel submitted that despite the report ofthe Psychiatrists (which is not challenged) the appeal should bedismissed, and cited the case of Bex v. Hash wood In that case thodefence of insanity was not raised “ at the express desire, indeed^ withthe avowed determination of the appellant ”. The facts in that casealso showed a carefully planned robbery with violence for the purpose ofstealing jewellery. There was apparently nothing in the evidenco'led atthe trial to indicate that the appellant may have been of unsound mind.
It was in these circumstances that an application to lead evidence ofthe mental condition of the appellant at the hearing of the appeal, wasrefused.
* 11943) 1 K. B. D. 1.
Ceylon Transport Board v. Thungadasa
211
The fact here aro different ; for, it cannot be said that the question ofunsoundness of mind did not arise on the evidence led at the trial. The. •Teport of the Board of Psychiatrists which wo now admit in evidence isin reality further evidence of a matter that did arise on the evidence atthe trial.
Wo are of tho view that the provisions of Section G (4) of the Court ofCriminal Appeal Ordinance aro wide'enough to enable this Court to actin a caso of this nature.
Acting under that Section, wo quash, tho sentence passed at- thetrial, and order the appellant to be kept in the safe custody of theSuperintendent of the Mental Hospital, and report the case forthe orders of the Minister of Justice.
Case reported to the Minister of Jvsticc.