Date: 12th December 2025
Case Number: HC (TAB) 2972/21
Venue: Special Trial-at-Bar, Colombo 7
The case was taken up before the Trial-at-Bar. All accused were present, except for the 17th accused, who had passed away. All parties were represented.
Today, Prosecution Witness No. 2140, Hon. Magistrate Upul Rajakaruna, Wawanella Magistrate Court, was called to give evidence on the admissibility of the statement made by the 15th Accused, M. H. Seyunul Abdeen, under Section 127 read with Section 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 15 of 1979, in the present case. The witness testified that the 15th Accused was the 26th suspect in case No. B 11330/18. The Hon. Magistrate testified that if any person informed him that he was about to give a statement due to any inducement, promise, or threat, he would not permit such a statement to be recorded before him.
The first volume of the case record in B 11330/18, produced by the Kegalle High Court, was shown to the Hon. Magistrate. Upon examining the record, he testified that a statement was given by the 15th accused on 26th September 2019, while the accused was in the custody of the CID, SIU Unit 2. He further testified that the statement was not completed on that day, as the 15th accused requested another date to complete the statement. Accordingly, 18th October 2019 was fixed as the next date for completion of the statement. The Hon. Magistrate further testified that on 18th October 2019, the 15th accused was again unable to complete the statement, and therefore 1st November 2019 was fixed as a further date. The Hon. Magistrate testified that the 15th accused took three days in total to complete his statement, which was recorded under Section 127 read with Section 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 15 of 1979, and he identified the 15th accused in court. The Hon. Magistrate testified that Police Sergeant Wijerathna and Sub-Inspector Dias Padmasiri produced the 15th accused before him on 26th September 2019 at 2.20 p.m. in his official chamber. At the initial stage, two CID officers, the 15th accused, and the typist were present in the chamber. Thereafter, the two CID officers were asked to leave the chamber.
The Prosecution marked the envelope containing the statement as P170 and showed it to the Hon. Magistrate. He testified that the statement was given on 26th September 2025 at 2.20 p.m. He further testified that he inquired from the 15th accused whether he was subjected to any inducement, promise, or threat in order to give the statement and granted him considerable time to decide whether he was willing to make a statement under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 15 of 1979. The Hon. Magistrate testified that the 15th accused informed him that he was making the statement voluntarily.
The Hon. Magistrate further testified that he informed the 15th accused of the consequences of making a statement under Section 127(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 15 of 1979. He testified that on 18th October 2019, the 15th accused continued to give, for the second time, the statement that had initially been commenced on 26th September 2019 before him. The State Counsel marked the envelope containing the statement recorded on 18th October 2019 as P171. The Hon. Magistrate further testified that an original copy of the statement recorded on that day was forwarded to the Hon. Attorney General for consideration under Sections 187(1) and 187(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 15 of 1979, together with a covering letter, on 04th January 2021. The State Counsel marked the said covering letter as P 172. Further, the envelope containing the statement made by the 15th accused before the Hon. Magistrate of Mawanella on 1st November 2019, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, was marked as P 173. The Hon. Magistrate, giving evidence, stated that the said statement had been typed by Ms. S. W. Gunasekara.
The Prosecution requested the Court to mark the statements made by the 15th accused, which were contained in the sealed envelopes opened in Court, as P 174 for the statement dated 26th September 2019, P 175 for the statement dated 18th October 2019, and P 176 for the statement dated 1st November 2019. The Prosecution further moved the Court to mark the original copies forwarded to the Hon. Attorney General of the said statements made by the 15th accused on 26th September 2019, 18th October 2019, and 1st November 2019 as P 177, P 178, and P 179, respectively.
The Counsel appearing for the 15th accused requested the Court to temporarily mark P 174, P 175, P 176, P 177, P 178, and P 179, subject to a Voir Dire inquiry into the admissibility of the relevant statement. Accordingly, the Prosecution marked the documents previously marked P 174 as C1, P 175 as C2, P 176 as C3, P 177 as C1A, P 178 as C2A, and P 179 as C3A. The Prosecution also informed the Court that the entire statement had been recorded in accordance with Sections 127 and 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, as well as Section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance, and that the prosecution was satisfied with the manner in which it had been recorded.
During cross-examination, it was suggested that the statements contained in C1, C2, C3, C1A, C2A, and C3A were not voluntarily given by the 15th accused and that he did not possess the capacity to make independent decisions while he was in custody. It was further suggested on behalf of the 15th accused that the document marked as C3 was a flawed record. The defence also submitted that merely because a person makes a statement willingly, it does not automatically render it a voluntarily given statement. It was further suggested that although the 15th accused had the capacity to have his statement recorded under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, the Magistrate had directed that it be recorded under Section 127(3).
It was also inquired on behalf of the defence whether the Hon. Magistrate had conducted any examination to determine the voluntariness of the statement. In response, the Hon. Magistrate stated that there was no observation indicating that the 15th accused had experienced any fear or threat before giving the statement. At that point, the defence asked whether it would be possible to determine from a person’s body language if a statement was made under expectation or promise. In response, the Hon. Magistrate stated that over the course of three days, approximately nine instances, he had asked the 15th accused whether any promise, influence, or threat had been used to obtain the statement, and the 15th accused had not indicated that any such thing had occurred. It was also informed on behalf of the defence that the Hon. Magistrate had spoken with Police Sergeant Wijerathna within the courtroom before taking the evidence, and that such discussions with the officers before giving testimony could potentially have caused disadvantage to the 15th accused.
Upon re-examination, the Prosecution once again presented documents marked as C1A, C2A, and C3 to the Hon. Magistrate, who identified his signatures on them. The Hon. Magistrate also stated that he had not spoken with Police Sergeant Wijerathna regarding the giving of evidence on any of the days, nor had he discussed any matters related to court proceedings. He emphasised that he had no personal relationship with the officer.
The Court also informed that it had decided to allow a Voir Dire inquiry into the statement given by the 15th accused. The Court ordered that summons be issued to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th witnesses on the additional witness list. The Court also directed that the summons be issued to the other witnesses named in the additional witness list. At the request of the prosecution, the Court also ordered that the 15th accused be held at Colombo Magazine Prison in a manner that would allow him to meet his counsel and provide instructions, and that facilities be provided to enable his counsel to meet him and receive such instructions.
The matter was fixed to be called again on 15th December 2025 at 10.00 a.m. for a Voir Dire inquiry.
