218th Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 01st July 2026|
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
The case was taken up before the Trial-at-Bar with all accused present, except the 17th accused who had passed away and the 9th accused.
The 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th accused were represented by Mr. Kaneel Maddumage, AAL, with Mr. Wimukthi Rajapaksha, AAL. The 9th, 12th and 13th accused were represented by Mr. Niroshan Siriwardane, AAL, with Mr. Ravindu Yasas, AAL. The 20th to 25th accused were represented by Mr. Adam Hailey, AAL. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 11th, 14th, and 16th accused appeared in person.
The Prosecution informed Court that if any Counsel or accused has objections to the marking of documents P907, P908, and P909, permission be granted for such objections to be recorded first. Accordingly, Counsel appearing for the 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th accused submitted that the Prosecution had failed to give notice in terms of section 17 of the Evidence (Special Provisions) Act No. 14 of 1995, that the original source of the recordings had not been proved before Court, and that the voluntariness of the recordings said to have been made by Inshaf Ahamed had not been established. The Counsel for the 9th, 12th and 13th accused, as well as Counsel for the 20th to 25th accused, informed Court that they take the same position. The 3rd and 14th accused also informed Court that they adopt the same position as the 9th accused and Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th accused.
The 4th, 6th, 11th, and 16th accused informed Court that they had no objection to the marking of the documents. The 5th accused informed Court that, as the Prosecution had stated that documents P907, P908, and P909 would not be used against any accused, the exercise amounted to a waste of the Court’s valuable time, and further stated that no one knew the device from which the recordings had been taken and that the person who had made the statement had died. In response, the Prosecution submitted that the notices required under section 17 of the Evidence (Special Provisions) Act No. 14 of 1995 had been given on 4th August 2022 and that the evidence was relevant under sections 8(2), 14, 17, and 32 of the Evidence Ordinance. The Prosecution also cited several case laws before Court, including The King v. E.F.C. Ludowyke (37 NLR 129), M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (1970), and Rumping v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1962).
Thereafter, Court delivered its Order, holding that the documents which the Prosecution sought to mark as P907, P908, and P909 could be marked in terms of section 17 read with section 21 of the Evidence Ordinance, and granted permission to do so. In doing so, Court set out several conditions to be satisfied by the Prosecution, including that the Prosecution must prove that the voice in the recordings was that of Inshaf Ahamed, that the pendrive had been taken into custody by the investigating officers lawfully, that the original pendrive had been produced before Court and that its contents had not been edited, and that the chain of custody had not been broken.
The Prosecution then led evidence-in-chief from PW 1276 Thamara Rupika. The witness was shown her translation marked as P907, and the voice recording named “English voice to family” contained therein was marked as P907(a)(2), after the recording was played in open Court and identified by PW 1276. The voice recording contained in the pendrive marked as P910 was also played in Court, and PW adoption identified it as the same recording she had listened to for the purpose of translation. The voice recording named “English voice to family” in the pendrive was then marked as P910(1). PW 1276 was cross-examined by Counsel for the 9th, 12th and 13th accused and by the 4th accused.
Thereafter, PW 2293 Chinthani Sendanayake gave evidence-in-chief and was shown her translation, which was marked as P907(b). The CD given to PW 2293 for translation purposes, containing the recording named “Instruction to my wife,” was marked as P907(b)(1), after the voice recording contained in the CD was played in open Court and identified by PW 2293. The voice recording contained in the pendrive marked as P910 was also played in Court, and PW 2293 identified it as the same recording she had listened to for translation purposes. The voice recording named “Instructions to my wife” in the pendrive was marked as P910(2). PW 2293 was cross-examined by Counsel for the 9th, 12th and 13th accused and was thereafter re-examined by the Prosecution.
Thereafter, PW 2299 A.G.R.P. Kumara gave evidence-in-chief and testified that he had carried out three translations from Tamil to Sinhala. He was shown his translations, which were marked as P908(a)(1), P908(b)(1), and P909(a). The voice recordings named “General part 2,” “Instructions to staff,” and “General Msg” contained in the CD given to PW 2299 for translation purposes were marked as P908(a)(2), P908(b)(2), and P909(a)(2), respectively, after the recordings were played in open Court and identified by PW 2299. The voice recordings contained in the pendrive marked as P910 were also played in Court, and PW 2299 identified them as the same recordings he had listened to for translation purposes. The voice recordings named “General part 2,” “Instructions to staff,” and “General Msg” in the pendrive were then respectively marked as P910(3), P910(4), and P910(5). PW 2299 was cross-examined by Counsel for the 9th, 12th and 13th accused.
The Court ordered summons to be issued on PW 2119 to appear before Court on 6th July 2026 at 2.00 p.m.
The matter was fixed to be called again on 2nd July 2026 at 10.00 a.m. for further trial.
