220th Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 03rd July 2026|
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
The proceedings commenced with the further cross-examination of PW-2036, Bimshani Jayasinghearachchi, by Mr. Niroshan Siriwardena, the learned counsel for the 12th accused.
The counsel questioned why, when the 12th accused returned on 1st November 2019, she had not recorded his statement, as it was the 2nd occasion on which he had returned after having time to consider the matter. The witness replied that she had once again afforded the 12th accused a further opportunity to think before making any statement.
The counsel suggested that the witness, together with Mr. Saman Perera, had prepared a typed statement in advance with the intention of obtaining the signature of the 12th accused. It was further suggested that the 12th accused had been allowed to communicate with his sister, mother and wife in order to create a friendly atmosphere and persuade him to sign the prepared statement. The witness denied these suggestions.
The counsel then asked how long it had taken to record the statement dated 9th November 2019. The witness replied that she could not state the duration. The counsel also requested the arrival and departure register maintained at the TID for 1st November 2019, but the witness stated that she had not brought the register to court.
It was further suggested that the statement dated 9th November 2019 did not mention that the 12th accused had met the witness on 1st November 2019. The witness denied the suggestion.
The counsel further suggested that, when obtaining the signature of the 12th accused on the statement dated 9th November 2019, the officers had emotionally blackmailed him by referring to his one-year-old child. It was also suggested that although the 12th accused had requested an opportunity to provide his version in writing in English, the witness had not permitted him to do so. The witness denied both suggestions.
The counsel further suggested that the 12th accused had never intended to make such a statement and that the witness nevertheless sought to obtain it. The witness denied the allegation. It was also suggested that the signature on the statement had been obtained through torture, threats and emotional blackmail while the 12th accused was in TID custody. The witness denied these allegations.
The counsel then asked whether the witness was aware that the 12th accused had been produced before the Colombo Magistrate’s Court on 3rd December 2019. The witness replied that she was not aware. The counsel further asked whether she knew that the 12th accused had informed the Magistrate that his signature had been forcibly obtained by TID officers. The witness stated that she had no knowledge of the matter. The counsel also referred to the journal entry of the Colombo Magistrate’s Court dated 3rd December 2019, suggesting that it recorded the same complaint. The witness again stated that she had no knowledge. The counsel finally suggested that the signatures to the statement had been obtained through continuous threats and emotional blackmail and 12th accused not in a capacity even to read such statement since it was in Sinhala language. The witness denied the suggestion.
Upon the conclusion of the cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 12th accused, the 4th accused personally commenced the cross-examination of the witness.
The 4th accused questioned the witness regarding her rank in 2019, when she served as an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), and the normal promotional hierarchy within the Police Department. The witness explained that the progression is ASP → SP → SSP → DIG. She stated that promotion from ASP to SP ordinarily takes approximately six years, from SP to SSP approximately four years, and from SSP to DIG approximately seven years. The 4th accused then questioned how she had progressed from ASP to DIG within a significantly shorter period. The witness explained that she had filed a Fundamental Rights application and, pursuant to the judgment delivered in that case, she had been granted the relevant promotion.
During the cross-examination, the Director’s Order dated 16th October 2019 was marked as 12VD1. A document of statement relating to the 12th accused prepared by the TID was marked as 12VD2, while the date appearing on that document was separately marked as 12VD2(A). The 4th accused drew attention to the witness’s signature together with the date appearing as 6th December 2024 and suggested that the document had been prepared by the witness.
The 4th accused then suggested that, on 1st November 2019, before the 12th accused was brought before the TID Headquarters, he had first been taken before the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) in order to obtain his signature on a statement already prepared by the witness. The witness denied the suggestion. It was further suggested that because the 12th accused had refused to sign the prepared statement, he had been given additional time to reconsider. The witness denied this allegation.
The 4th accused further suggested that, as this strategy had failed on 1st November 2019, the 12th accused had been sent back to the Welisara Navy Camp. The witness denied the allegation.
Referring to the Director’s Order, the 4th accused pointed out that it stated the 12th accused was required to meet a superior officer to ascertain whether there was any necessity for such a meeting. The witness agreed. However, when asked whether the order specified the reason why the 12th accused was required to meet her, the witness replied that it did not.
The 4th accused further suggested that, even before knowing the purpose of the meeting, the witness had carried copies of the relevant provisions of the PTA and the Evidence Ordinance in anticipation of obtaining a statement. The witness denied the suggestion, stating that she normally carried such statutory provisions.
Thereafter, the 5th accused personally cross-examined the witness. He suggested that explaining Section 16(1) of the PTA together with Section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance would ordinarily require at least two minutes and therefore suggested that the witness could not have spent more than ten minutes explaining the relevant legal provisions to the accused. The witness did not accept the suggestion.
The 9th accused then personally cross-examined the witness. He asked whether the witness had observed the 12th accused to be in a sound mental condition. The witness replied in the affirmative. Referring to the Medico-Legal Examination Form (MLEF) marked as P-913, he asked whether the 12th accused had been referred to the Judicial Medical Officer for an assessment of his mental condition. The witness answered in the affirmative. The 9th accused further suggested that the witness had given evidence inconsistent with the documentary record and questioned her regarding the explanation allegedly given to the 12th accused concerning his right to make a statement before Magistrate.
Upon the conclusion of the cross-examination, PW-2036, Bimshani Jayasinghearachchi, was re-examined by the prosecution. During the re-examination, the witness was shown 12VD2 and asked to clarify the issue relating to the date appearing on the document. She explained that although the year appeared to read 2024, the correct year was 2019. In order to clarify the discrepancy, a reply to 12VD2 was produced and marked as N-2.
Following the marking of N-2, the accused were permitted to conduct further cross-examination confined to the matters arising from the newly marked document.
The 4th accused questioned the witness regarding N-2 and asked whether it had been forwarded by an officer identified as T-4. The witness replied in the affirmative. He further pointed out that N-2 had been signed by T-4 and not by the witness. The witness agreed and explained that she was identified as T-3, whereas T-4 was the officer who assumed duties after her promotion.
The 9th accused then referred to N-2 and pointed out that several serial numbers at the top of the document had been struck off and that the original document was a punched document. The witness agreed. He suggested that, because the document was punched and the serial numbers had been struck off, additional documents could subsequently have been inserted into the bundle. The witness denied the suggestion.
Thereafter, PW-2036, Bimshani Jayasinghearachchi, was released.
The 12th accused was then called to give evidence and commenced his evidence-in-chief. He stated that he was arrested on 27th April 2019. He testified that he did not know the identity of the persons who arrested him, as they had covered their faces and were dressed in black clothing. According to his evidence, they handcuffed him, placed him inside a van and instructed him to bend forward while seated. After he bent down, one of the officers sat on his back, while his face was covered with a cloth-like material. He further testified that he later came to know that he had been taken to the TID.
The evidence-in-chief of the 12th accused remained incomplete and was fixed for continuation on the next date of hearing.
The Court directed PW-2038 and PW-2043 to appear on 6th July 2026, while PW-836, PW-1331 and PW-1335 were directed to appear on 7th July 2026.
Next date of hearing: 6th July 2026 at 10.00 a.m. for further evidence-in-chief of the 12th accused.
