182nd Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 06th May 2026|
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
Mr. Namal Rajapaksa, Attorney at Law appeared for the 1st Accused only for the Voir Diar inquiry of the 1st accused.
The witness ASP Warnakulasooriya Patabandige Vijitha Perera gave evidence-in-chief stating that he was an officer attached to the Criminal Investigation Department since 2019 and had been involved in the relevant investigation pursuant to written instructions issued by the Director of the CID directing him to take necessary steps regarding suspects and report progress. He stated that acting on those instructions, the 1st Accused was first brought before him on 18 July 2020 through police officers attached to the CID detention unit. The accused was not handcuffed, and because he was a Tamil-speaking person, an interpreter was arranged to facilitate communication. Through the interpreter, the accused was informed of the legal provisions under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and was questioned to determine whether any inducement, threat, promise, or coercion had influenced him in relation to giving a statement. The witness stated that after this interaction, the accused was sent back to the cell to reconsider his decision regarding making a statement.
The witness further stated that the accused was again brought before him on 30 July 2020 and on that occasion also the accused was informed of the legal implications of giving a confession, and similar inquiries were made regarding voluntariness and absence of coercion.
The witness then testified in detail regarding the events of 11 September 2020, stating that the 1st Accused was produced before him at approximately 10.23 a.m. through police officers attached to the CID. He stated that the accused was again sent for medical examination before the Judicial Medical Officer, and a report (P802) was obtained confirming that the accused was in a fit physical and mental condition. After reviewing the report, the witness proceeded with the recording process.
According to the witness, Officer Udayakumaran, who was fluent in Tamil and Sinhala, was called to assist with interpretation and typing. The alleged confession was recorded in Tamil, typed on the witness’s laptop, and the process commenced around 1.30 p.m. and concluded around 3.50 p.m. The witness stated that after completion, the statement was read over to the accused, who was given the opportunity to make corrections and thereafter signed it. The prosecution sought to produce the statement as evidence, but due to objection by defence counsel, it was marked as M1 for the purposes of the Voir Dire inquiry.
The witness was cross examined by the counsel of the 1st accused, 3rd, 4th ,5th and 9 th accused.
During cross-examination, the defence consistently challenged the voluntariness and authenticity of the confession. It was suggested that the accused had never voluntarily approached the ASP and that it was the witness who repeatedly summoned him and inquired about his decision. The witness ultimately admitted that he had called the accused and asked about his intention to give a statement. The defence further challenged the witness’s credibility by questioning his alleged ability to understand Tamil, highlighting his inability to translate basic phrases, and by pointing to the absence of contemporaneous notes documenting the production of the accused before the ASP office.
Further cross-examination revealed discrepancies in official records, including a correction in the date of the CID letter from 15 July 2020 to 17 July 2020, inconsistencies in official seals, and issues relating to documents marked 1VD1 and 1VD2. The defence also highlighted inconsistencies in the Judicial Medical Officer’s report, where conflicting dates were noted between copies of the document. Questions were also raised regarding whether the accused had been provided basic necessities such as food prior to the alleged confession, and whether proper procedural safeguards had been followed. The witness maintained his position and denied allegations of fabrication or irregularity.
It was further suggested that the alleged confession was not a spontaneous statement but was instead the product of questioning conducted through an interpreter, thereby resembling an investigative interrogation rather than a voluntary confession. The witness denied this suggestion and maintained that the process was conducted lawfully. The defence also attempted to challenge the witness’s credibility using references to other cases, including prior Voir Dire determinations, but some of these questions were disallowed by Court.
Throughout the proceedings, a consistent defence position emerged that the accused had never voluntarily made the alleged confession and that the entire process was initiated and controlled by the investigating officers. The prosecution maintained that the statement was properly recorded after ensuring voluntariness and medical fitness.
After the conclusion of cross-examination, the witness was re-examined by the prosecution, and his testimony was concluded.
The counsel for the 1st accused indicated their intention to call further witnesses, including the wife of the 1st Accused, 1st accused and the Disciplinary Officer of Boosa Prison.
The Court also fixed dates for further proceedings and adjourned the matter, with the next hearing scheduled for 11 May 2026 at 10.00 a.m., while a related order concerning another Voir Dire inquiry of the 4th accused was rescheduled for 13 th of May 2026.
Next Date: 11th May 2026 at 10.00 am
