203rd Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 09th June 2026|
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
The proceedings commenced with the evidence of PW-2249, Ms. Mohammed Fatima Nashua, a Notary Public and Attorney-at-Law, regarding Lease Agreement No. 1752 dated 22nd March 2018. She testified that the said lease agreement was entered into between Mohammed Aoun Mohammed Asan Ali as the lessor and Abdul Latif Mohammed Shafiq (10th accused) together with Mohammed Asam Mohammed Mubarak as the lessees, relating to a house situated at Malwana, Polhena. She stated that the agreement was signed on behalf of the lessor by Mohammed Sabir Mohammed Ibtisam, while Mohammed Ali Umar Farooq signed on behalf of the lessees. The protocol of the lease agreement was marked as P-822, and the signature of the 10th accused was marked as P-822(A). She further stated that later a Deed of Cancellation of Lease was prepared at the request of the lessees, but the parties failed to appear and execute the same.
Thereafter, the prosecution called PW-2296, Mr. Mohammed Aoun Mohammed Asan Ali, the owner of the property. He stated that he had rented out his house situated at Malwana, Polhena to the lessees for a monthly rental of Rs. 40,000/-. He further stated that the lease arrangement was cancelled on 1st January 2019 and identified Abdul Latif Mohammed Shafiq as the 10th accused.
The next witness was PW-2247, Mohammed Sabir Mohammed Ibtisam, who signed the lease agreement as a witness on behalf of the lessor. He stated that since Abdul Latif Mohammed Shafiq was residing in Puttalam and was not known to the lessor, Mohammed Asam Mohammed Mubarak was included as the second lessee. The witness identified the 10th accused and the 2nd accused, stating that the 2nd accused managed the garden after the property was taken on lease.
During his evidence, the witness was shown P-81, which was a photograph of the identity card of Mohammed Mubarak, and P-85(1); however, he stated that he could not identify the person appearing in P-85(1). He further identified Mohammed Asam Mohammed Mubarak as the person responsible for the Kingsbury Hotel bomb blast. P-13 CD was shown and played before him, and he identified the person appearing in the video dated 20th April 2019 as Mubarak. The said video was marked as P-13(A).
During cross-examination, PW-2247 stated that after the lease agreement was entered into, he only visited the premises for the purpose of plucking coconuts. He admitted that there were no complaints regarding illegal activities by the lessees and that no complaints had been received from neighbours. He further admitted that he did not know whether the 10th accused was actually in possession of the house or what activities were carried out by Mubarak while staying there. He stated that nothing illegal had been found from the premises. During re-examination, the identity card photocopy of Safi was marked as P-823, and the identity card photocopy of Mubarak was marked as P-824. He further stated that the property was situated within approximately one and a half acres of enclosed land, preventing outsiders from observing activities inside the premises.
Thereafter, the prosecution called PW-2256, Mr. Gamini Premashantha, regarding the house situated at Daluwakotuwa, Janapada Avenue, belonging to Anuradhika Lanka Thilaka. He stated that he assisted the owner by maintaining the garden and later helped to find a tenant. He stated that the property was leased in September 2018.
The lease agreement previously marked as X-17 during the Voir Dire inquiry of the 11th accused was marked in the present proceedings as P-825, and the signature of the 10th accused was marked as P-825(A). The witness stated that the agreement was signed on 29th September 2018 and that Abdul Latif Mohammed Shafi was the lessee. He identified Mohammed Hastun as the other witness to the agreement and identified him as the person responsible for the Katwapitiya bomb blast.
The witness was shown telephone records marked as P-826 and identified the 11th accused as the person who negotiated regarding the rental of the house. The photograph of the 11th accused was marked as P-827. Telephone records relating to telephone number 076-6629509 were marked as P-828, and the relevant call entries showing 34 contacts were marked as P-828(A). A CD marked as P-56(A)(2) was played before the witness, and he identified Mohammed Hastun appearing in the video.
During cross-examination by the 10th accused, PW-2256 stated that the 10th accused, 11th accused, and Mohammed Hastun attended to sign the lease agreement. A contradiction was put to him regarding his CID statement dated 2nd May 2019, where it was stated that the 10th accused had not visited the house before signing the agreement. However, before Court, he stated that the 10th accused had visited the house before signing the lease agreement. He admitted that he did not know whether the 10th accused was actually in possession of the premises.
During cross-examination by the 11th accused, the witness was shown X-7, relating to ownership details of telephone number 076-6629509. According to the said document, the registered owner of the SIM card was L.K.R.D. Kumar. A suggestion was made that the telephone number did not belong to the 11th accused, and the document was marked as 11D(I) on behalf of the 11th accused. The witness stated that although the SIM card was registered under another person’s name, it was used by the 11th accused. Suggestions that the 11th accused never contacted him or never met him were denied.
After completion of the evidence of the above witnesses, the prosecution informed Court regarding the witnesses summoned for the continuation of the trial. The prosecution stated that PW-2241, PW-2285, PW-2286, PW-2287, PW-2242, PW-2238, PW-2278, and PW-40 were summoned to appear on 10th June 2026, and their statements were handed over to the accused.
Further, PW-2279, PW-2280, PW-2281, PW-2282, PW-2284, and PW-2254 were summoned to appear on 11th June 2026, and their statements were provided to the accused. The prosecution further informed Court that PW-2291, PW-2251, PW-2250, PW-2292, PW-1412, PW-1029, PW-1030, PW-1027, and PW-2293 were summoned to appear on 15th June 2026, while PW-1336, PW-2288, PW-1337, PW-1407, PW-1031, PW-1038, PW-1039, PW-1026, and PW-1028 were summoned to appear on 16th June 2026. Their statements were also handed over to the accused. PW-2245 and PW-2244 were summoned to appear on 12th June 2026.
The prosecution further informed Court that the name of PW-2257 was removed from the witness list, and in his place the name of Mohammed Mastoor Fatima Faria was added.
At that stage, the 9th accused made an application on behalf of the other accused persons stating that sufficient time had not been given to study the witness statements and prepare the defence. It was submitted that since the trial was being conducted daily and the proceedings consumed considerable time, providing witness statements only one or two days before witnesses appeared caused difficulties in preparing the defence.
The Court recorded the concern raised by the accused and directed the prosecution to provide witness statements to the accused persons as early as possible to enable adequate preparation for the proceedings.
Thereafter, the matter was adjourned and fixed to continue on 10th June 2026 at 10.00 a.m. for further trial proceedings.
