183rd Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 11th May 2026|
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
Today, the voir dire inquiry related to the first accused was taken up before the Trial-at-Bar. The first accused gave evidence-in-chief and it was led by his counsel, Mr. Namal Rajapaksa.
At the preliminary stage of the evidence-in-chief, questions were directed towards the personal and family background of the witness, his educational background, his religious activities, and the circumstances surrounding his arrest. Evidence was also led regarding whether the witness had made any confessionary statement to the CID.
Thereafter, the witness was shown document M-01, the alleged confessionary statement. The witness denied having made such a statement to the CID. Although he admitted that the signature appearing on the document appeared to be his, he stated that he could not say when or under what circumstances the signature had been obtained, as his signatures had been obtained by CID officers on numerous occasions during his detention of approximately one and a half years.
The witness further testified that he first became aware of the alleged confessionary statement only after his lawyer informed him at the time the indictment in Trial-at-Bar Case No. HC/TAB/4485/2021 before the High Court of Kegalle was served on him. According to the witness, the indictment had been in Sinhala language, whereas he was not literate in Sinhala, and therefore he was unable to read or understand its contents himself. He stated that, at the relevant time, he had been detained at Boossa Prison.
After becoming aware of the alleged statement, the witness stated that he had sent three letters via prison to his wife, which were marked as 1VD3A, 1VD4A, and 1VD5A respectively, together with Sinhala translations marked as 1VD3B, 1VD4B, and 1VD5B. Through those letters, the witness communicated that he had not given any confessionary statement to the ASP and alleged that ASP Vijitha had falsely attributed such a statement to him. He further requested his wife to inform the relevant persons and take necessary action regarding the matter.
The witness also testified, he had also informed Magistrate in Colombo MC3 that the CID had fabricated the alleged confessionary statement without actually recording any such statement from him.
Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined by the third accused. During the cross-examination, questions were mainly directed towards the witness’s literacy and understanding of Sinhala language. It was revealed that the witness had requested a Tamil version of the volume 01 document, which consists the statemets and proceedings of the 1st witness during in the custody of CID. Also although the original M01 had been in Tamil, the witness stated that he had only been given an opportunity to properly go through the document approximately three days before the commencement of the voir dire inquiry.
Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined by the ninth accused. During that cross-examination, it was revealed that the witness had suffered from an eye impairment since the age of seven and had undergone eye surgery. According to the witness, without his spectacles he could not properly read. He testified that although he had been using spectacles at the time of arrest, the CID had not permitted him to use them during detention. At that stage, eye treatment records and receipts consisting of three pages were marked as 1VD6 subject to proof by the prosecution. The witness also stated that at the time the prison letters were written, he had been provided with his spectacles.
The witness further testified that according to his Islamic beliefs he could not make confessions in the manner alleged by the prosecution. He also alleged that while in CID custody he had been assaulted and slapped, causing serious injury to his ear, and that he had been produced before the JMO. According to the witness, after the alleged assault, he had been referred by the JMO to the ENT Unit for treatment.
During the cross-examination by the ninth accused, it was suggested that Tamil-speaking and English-speaking superior officers conducted routine cell rounds, and therefore the witness would have had opportunities to communicate voluntarily if he genuinely wished to make a statement. The witness answered in the affirmative.
At that stage, the learned State Counsel objected to the nature of the questioning by the co-accused, submitting that the questioning exceeded the proper scope of cross-examination and amounted in substance to further evidence-in-chief. Reliance was placed on Sections 137(2) and 143 of the Evidence Ordinance. In response, the ninth accused submitted that the co-accused were also disputing the voluntariness of the alleged confessionary statement and therefore their questions were directed against the prosecution case rather than against the first accused. The Trial-at-Bar Judges observed that the proceedings remained a process of cross-examination and should not become another evidence-in-chief session.
Thereafter, the witness clarified that he had not been produced before the Mawanella Magistrate’s Court every month, but approximately once every three months. The Trial-at-Bar Judges also questioned the witness regarding how and when he became a Maulavi and the qualifications required to obtain such status.
Thereafter, the learned State Counsel commenced the cross-examination of the witness. During the prosecution’s cross-examination, it was revealed that the witness had been employed in Qatar from around 2016 onwards and had been active on Facebook while residing there. The prosecution further elicited evidence that the witness had been teaching at a Madrasa school in the Hettipola area from around 2018 onwards. It was also during the prosecution’s cross-examination that the witness acknowledged a familial relationship with Zahran Hashim, explaining that Zahran had married the daughter of the elder sister of the witness’s wife.
The witness further stated during the prosecution’s cross-examination that while he had been in CID custody, his father had passed away. He also explained that on the date of arrest, namely 21st April 2019, he had been travelling from Kurunegala towards Polonnaruwa by bus, but due to the curfew situation prevailing at the time, buses had not proceeded beyond Dambulla. According to the witness, after getting down at Dambulla and searching for accommodation, he was arrested. He denied the prosecution suggestion that the ninth accused had also been present at the time of arrest.
The witness was again shown document M-01, and end portions of the document were put to him by his handwriting thus the prosecution suggest that he had awareness regarding the contents of the document and witness admit it.
At the conclusion of the day’s proceedings, due to limited time, the matter was adjourned to 12th May 2026 at 10.00 a.m. for the continuation of the prosecution’s cross-examination.
The learned counsel for the first accused further informed court that the defense would not be calling the wife of the witness as a witness. Instead, the defense intended to call the Registrar of the Colombo MC 3, the Disciplinary Officer of Boossa Prison, and the Information Officer of the National Police Commission.
Finally, the Trial-at-Bar Judges directed the Department of Official Languages to translate the M-01 document into Sinhala and submit the translated version to court within one week.
Next date & time:
Further Cross examination by the prosecution was fixed to resume on the 2026.05.12 at 10:00 a.m.
