The Appeal Court yesterday (18) ordered the release of an approximately 80-year-old woman who had been sentenced to death by the Hambantota High Court for a murder committed over three decades ago.
The order was issued after the Appeals Court considered a petition filed by the woman challenging her conviction and death sentence. The case stemmed from the killing of Jayasena Meegahalanda on 18 January 1993 in Modarapilluwa, Hambantota.
In 1999, the Attorney General filed indictments against three individuals—Ranjith Panilla Gamage and Jindasa Madawan Arachchi, both from Galpamuna, Palatuwa, and Sirima Edirisinghe from Ambalantota—accusing them of involvement in the murder. During the trial before the Hambantota High Court, one of the accused passed away, and the remaining two were convicted.
The two surviving accused appealed the conviction, claiming the trial judge had failed to properly evaluate the witness testimonies. In 2018, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial at the Hambantota High Court.
During the second trial, another accused died, leaving Sirima Edirisinghe as the sole defendant. At the end of the retrial, she was again found guilty and sentenced to death.
Edirisinghe appealed once more. Her counsel, Darshana Kuruppu, argued that the witness testimonies against her were inconsistent and unreliable. He pointed out that the High Court had failed to address contradictions in the statements provided by key witnesses.
The Appeals Court, comprising Justices B. Sasi Mahendran and Amal Ranaraja, heard the case, with Justice Ranaraja delivering the verdict. He ruled that the inconsistencies in witness testimonies raised serious doubts about the credibility of the evidence. The Court found that the High Court had erred in its analysis and declared that Edirisinghe should not have been convicted based on such unreliable evidence.
Notably, the primary witness was the elder daughter of the deceased. She testified that while on her way to school, she saw her father in a struggle with the three accused. However, during the inquest, she only mentioned seeing two men involved. The testimony she gave at the High Court also differed significantly from her previous statements to police and during the inquest.
The younger daughter of the deceased, who was the second witness, also introduced new allegations during the High Court trial, claiming for the first time that the accused were armed—an assertion absent from her earlier statements.
The Appeal Court noted that the elder daughter had not informed her mother—who was the third witness—that Edirisinghe had assaulted her father, yet this was mentioned for the first time in court. The Appeal Court concluded that these discrepancies cast substantial doubt on the reliability of the witnesses and stated that Edirisinghe could not be deemed guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Appeal Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, acquitted Edirisinghe, and ordered her immediate release.
Appearing for the appellant were Attorneys-at-Law Tharushi Gamage, Sahan Weerasinghe, and Darshana Kuruppu. Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara represented the Attorney General. (Courtesy: Tharindu Jayawardhana – medialk.com)
