157th Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 16th March 2026|
Venue: Special Trial-at-Bar, Colombo 07
The matter was taken up before the Trial-at-Bar. All accused were present, except the 17th accused, who had passed away.
The prosecution Witnesses No. 2, 12, and 21 from the additional witnesses list were present in court. The prosecution Witness No. 2 was called to give his evidence-in-chief. He testified that he retired on 19th November 2024 and that, during his service, he was an officer who had received promotions. He further stated that in 2020 he had served in both the TID and CID, and that he was appointed as director of the CID on 24th May 2020, at a time when Senior Superintendent of Police Tilakaratne was serving as the director. PW 2 identified document 4VD (1) as a document written and signed by him, relating to his period of service. He further testified that the inward register maintained at the director’s office indicated that document 4VD (1) was received by him on 11th September 2026. Thereafter, document P184 was shown to the witness, and upon the request of the prosecution, it was temporarily marked as E4.
PW 2 further testified that document 4VD (1) contained a request by the 4th accused to meet a senior officer, and that upon receiving the document on 11th September 2020, he forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police Kavinda Piyasekara with instructions to report back to him. He stated that document 4VD (1) contained three annexures. He also testified that, within the Criminal Investigation Department, when a suspect requests to meet a senior officer, a subordinate officer makes a note of such request and forwards it, with excerpts, to the Officer-in-Charge, who in turn forwards it to the director with relevant excerpts. The PW 2 was then questioned regarding the stamp marked 4VD(1)(E), and he testified that the date reflected in the rubber stamp was 11th September 2020. He further stated that on 12th September 2020 he was informed by the Inspector General of Police that Superintendent of Police Kavinda Piyasekara had been promoted to the rank of the Senior Superintendent of Police, and that on 15th September 2020 he accordingly changed the E-Code assigned to Kavinda Piyasekara from E8 to E6. He testified that E-Codes are assigned within the CID for administrative convenience based on seniority.
The PW 2 further testified that on 11th September 2020 he recorded document 4VD(1) in the outward register and forwarded it to Police Superintendent Kavinda Piyasekara, and that he later came to know that a statement had been recorded from the 4th accused under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979. Accordingly, document marked as P185 was shown to the witness, and upon the request of the prosecution, it was temporarily marked as E5. PW 2 also testified that during his tenure as the director of the CID, no LTTE member had been detained as a detainee within the CID. Following the examination-in-chief, the interpreter explained the entirety of the evidence-in-chief to all accused in Tamil, in terms of Section 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979. Thereafter, PW 2 was cross-examined by the 1st, 4th, and 9th accused.
During the cross-examination by the 4th accused, document 4VD(1) was shown to PW 2 and he testified that he had received 4VD(1) from Acting Officer-in-Charge Priyadarshana and had marked a symbol near the word “Officer-in-Charge” to indicate this, explaining that such markings were customary within the CID for administrative purposes. It was suggested to him that no such marking appeared near the signature and official seal on the annexed typed excerpt accompanying 4VD(1), and that he was changing his answers while giving evidence.
The 4th accused further suggested that PW 2 had been absent for approximately fifteen days towards the end of 2019 before returning to service, and that he had selected the Superintendent of Police Kavinda Piyasekara in order to fabricate the statement allegedly given by the 4th accused under Section 16(1) of the PTA. It was also suggested that PW 2 had been transferred between the Colombo Crimes Division, CID, and TID to divert investigations relating to the Easter attacks and to implicate innocent persons, and that he had instructed the preparation of false confessions for that purpose. It was further suggested that the 4th accused had never made such a statement, that PW 2 had threatened him, taken him to his official quarters at midnight, compelled him to make a statement before a Magistrate, and even caused the arrest of his brother when he refused.
During the cross-examination by the 1st accused, it was suggested that PW 2 was falsely identifying the 4th accused in court. The 9th accused suggested that in the Supreme Court case SC FR 644/2010, the Petitioner of that case had filed it in his personal capacity against PW 2, in which PW 2 was named as the first respondent; the judgment of that case was marked as 4VD 9(2). Further suggestions were made by the 4th accused that PW 2 had fabricated records with false timelines to create false evidence, that no statement had been made under Section 16(1) of the PTA, and that PW 2 had falsely claimed that the 4th accused expressed willingness to make such a statement and had used subordinate officers to prepare it. Upon re-examination, it was clarified that the use of E-Codes was standard practice within the CID, that PW 2 had received document 4VD(1) from the Acting Officer-in-Charge, and that in the judgment marked 4VD 9(2), no personal liability had been attributed to the witness.
Thereafter, the Prosecution Witness No. 21, Police Constable 76258 Perera, was called to give evidence. He testified that following the arrest of the 4th accused in connection with the Mawanella Buddha statue vandalism incident, he had assisted in recording statements made by the accused. He testified that he was aware that the 4th accused had made a statement under Section 16(1) of the PTA, but that he had no involvement in recording that particular statement. During the cross-examination, the 4th accused suggested that on 5th October 2020 the witness had shown him a document, marked as E1 before courts, and requested him to sign it, stating that the witness had typed a shorter version of the alleged statement and requested his signature. It was further suggested that when the 4th accused refused, the witness advised him to inform the Officer-in-Charge, and that the witness was giving false evidence, having acted under the instructions of superior officers. Upon re-examination, matters relating to the typing of the document marked E1 were clarified.
At the conclusion of proceedings, Prosecution Witness No. 12 from the additional list was directed to appear on the next date. Summons were ordered to be issued on Police Constable 29556 Wimalasinghe. Further, summons were ordered to be issued on Prosecution Witnesses No. 507 to 526 in the main case to appear before court on 18th March 2026.
The matter was fixed to be called again on 17th March 2026 at 10.00 a.m. for further trial.
