177th Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 28th April 2026|
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
The matter was taken up before the Trial-at-Bar. All accused were present, except the 17th accused, who had passed away. The 12th and 13th accused were represented by a counsel.
The 9th accused proceeded to further cross-examine Witness No. 2073. It was suggested that there is no record made by the witness on 5th October 2020 indicating that the 9th accused expressed a desire to make a statement in order to clear his conscience and that all events alleged to have occurred at the witness’s official chamber on 5th October 2020 are false. The 9th accused further suggested that there is no record made by the witness indicating that the 9th accused was brought to the witness’s official chamber on 7th October 2020, nor any record regarding the removal of handcuffs from the 9th accused at that time. It was also suggested that in the notes made on 5th October 2020, 7th October 2020, and 8th October 2020, there is no reference to the presence of a printer in the witness’s office. Further, it was suggested that the document marked L01 had in fact been prepared earlier at the Special Investigation Unit 2, Criminal Investigation Department by officers including Chief Inspector Marasinghe and officer Palitha (No. 587), and that the corrections said to have been made by the 9th accused were not made by him.
It was further suggested that the statement allegedly given by the 9th accused on 8th October 2020 was not made voluntarily, and that on 10th October 2020, the 9th accused informed the Hon. Magistrate, Mawanella that he had not made such a statement voluntarily. Thereafter, the 4th, 5th, and 11th accused also cross-examined the witness no. 2073. Accordingly the 4th accused suggested that, as the 9th accused was to be remanded on 19th October 2020, the witness had forcibly obtained his signature on a document said to contain his statement.
The 4th accused further suggested that the witness no 2073 had destroyed the registers maintained in his office relating to incoming and outgoing correspondence, specifically because no such letter had been received on 5th October 2020, and that such destruction was done intentionally. The 5th accused suggested that in the typed portion of the document marked L01, there is no mention of the date 8th October 2020, and that the witness no. 2073 had later inserted that date in his own handwriting. It was also suggested that the statement in L01 does not contain any certification that it was made without inducement, threat, or promise, and it was further suggested that the statement attributed to the 9th accused was not made at his own but that his signature had been forcibly obtained at the Special Investigation Unit 2.
The 11th accused further suggested that Chief Inspector Marasinghe of the CID had assaulted the 9th accused by striking his ear and thereby forced him to sign the statement, causing ear pain. It was also suggested that, in order to conceal this injury, the 9th accused had not been produced before an ENT surgeon. Thereafter, the Counsel appearing for the 12th and 13th accused cross-examined Witness No. 2073, following which the Prosecution conducted re-examination.
Subsequently, the Prosecution informed the Court that Witness No. 2073 had been called to mark, on a provisional basis, the document marked L01, said to be a statement given by the 9th accused on 8th October 2020 under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No.48 of 1979. It was submitted that, in terms of Section 16(2) of the Act, the burden of proving that such statement was not made voluntarily lies with the accused, and accordingly, the defence should proceed with calling evidence, after which the Prosecution would call any further necessary witnesses. The 9th accused objected, stating that his position is not that the statement was involuntary, but that he did not make such a statement at all, and cited Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka v. Selvarasa Kirubakaran (SC Appeal No. 82/2022) in support of the position that, in such circumstances, the burden of proof rests with the Prosecution. However, the 9th accused informed Court that he would first lead evidence and intended to mark a Journal Entry in case No. B 11330/18 of the Magistrate’s Court, Mawanella.
In relation to the voir dire inquiry of the 4th accused, his written submissions were tendered in open court. The Court was also informed that the 13th accused is scheduled to be produced at the Ayurvedic Hospital in Borella on 29th April 2026, as notified by the Prison authorities.
The matter was fixed to be called again on 29th April 2026 at 10.00 a.m. for further trial.
