Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: The Division Bench of K Priyantha Fernando and Sampath B Abayakoon, JJ., dismissed the appeal against the conviction order of the High Court of Hambanthota and upheld the conviction  for committing the murder of one Hettiarachchige Thilaka and causing grievous hurt on one M.B. Himali Asanka punishable in terms of sections 296 and 316 of the Penal Code respectively.

In the case, the deceased mother had gone to close the gate in front of the house when the appellant had broken the kadulla, come inside their garden and the appellant had hit the deceased on her head with a katty knife and upon succumbed to injuries upon admission to injuries. The appellant said he did not have any intention to kill anyone but swerved the club in his self defence.

The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the words the deceased used mocking at him provoked the appellant. The Counsel for the respondent submitted that the said mocking happened had been at about 6.30 pm and the incident of assault has taken place at about 8.30-9.00pm. Thus, it cannot be a sudden provocation.

The Court referred to the exception 1 to section 294 of the Penal Code which provides;

“Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, cause the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident” and observed that the assault had taken place at about 8.30-9.00pm. Thus, the appellant cannot rely on sudden provocation.

Further, the Court observed that the medical evidence showed that the cut injury to the top of the head could not have been caused by swerving the katty as testified by the appellant as it had been a hard cut injury caused intentionally on top of the head.[Loku Baduge Dhammika Priyantha Jayasuriya v. Attorney General, Court of Appeal Case No. HCC/0112 of 2019, decided on 17-12-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


For Appellant:  Nihara Randeniya

For Respondent:  R. Bary

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.