140th Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 12th February 2026|
Venue: Special Trial-at-Bar, Colombo 07
The Attorney-at-Law, Amaranath Rajakaruna, who had expressed his willingness to be appointed as assigned counsel for any accused, informed the Court that due to the sudden illness of his wife, he was unable to represent the accused and, with the permission of the Court, left the Court premises. Thereafter, Witness No. 1773, retired SSP Ajith Kavinda Piyasekara, who was serving as ASP of the Criminal Investigation Department at the relevant time, gave evidence. He stated that on 11.09.2020, upon being informed by the Director of the CID that the 4th accused wished to make a statement, the witness received written instructions to record the same.
On 14.09.2020, the witness called the 4th accused to be produced before him. He inquired into the accused’s Sinhala literacy, the reasons for giving a statement, and whether he was acting under any threat or pressure. The accused stated that he had been in CID custody for about one year, that his family members had been arrested by various police stations, and that he wished to relax his mind. The witness explained that any statement made could be used against him and described the legal consequences. However, no statement was recorded on that date, and the accused was sent back to the remand custody after being advised to reconsider his position.
The accused was again called on 23.09.2020, when the witness once more inquired whether the 4th accused was under any coercion and explained the legal consequences of making a statement. The statement was not recorded on that date either, and the accused was returned to custody.
On 04.10.2020, the accused was once again called before the witness. After confirming that he was not acting under any threat and reiterating the consequences of making a statement, the accused complained of a toothache and was referred to the JMO. He was returned with Court Form No. 128/20 (marked as P182). Thereafter, the witness verified the accused’s Sinhala literacy and recorded the statement, which took approximately two and a half hours. Police Constable No. 70086 Bandara typed the statement. After printing, the accused was given the opportunity to read and correct it. The statement consisted of five pages, and the accused signed each page. The prosecution then sought to mark the statement as P-183.
The 4th accused objected, alleging that the statement had been fabricated by the CID and that the signature was not his. Consequently, the Court ordered a voir dire inquiry to determine admissibility, and thereafter the statement was temporarily marked as ‘E1’. The 4th accused, appearing without legal representation, proceeded to cross-examine the witness. He questioned the witness regarding his experience under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, his promotions, duties, and prison visits. He further questioned the manner in which the request to give the statement was communicated and suggested that the 4th accused did not need to tell Upasewaka Namal Bandara that the accused needed to do a statement to the SSP if the witness was going on prison rounds. The accused had the opportunity to tell the witness directly. The accused then attempted to mark the Director’s written order, which included notes forming part of the Information Book (IB). Learned State Counsel objected to the marking on the basis that the IB could not be produced as evidence. Following submissions, the Court adjourned the matter and fixed the trial to resume the following day at 10:00 a.m., directing the same witness to appear next date (2026/02/13)
Next date: 13/02/2026
