Date: 31st July 2026
Case No: HC (TAB) 2972/21
Court: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar)
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
The appearance for the Defence was marked as previously. On behalf of the Prosecution, appearance was also marked as previously, with the exception of Ms. Haripriya Jayasundara, whose appearance was marked in her new capacity as Senior Deputy Solicitor General (SDSG) following her recent promotion.
The witness P.W. 1958, Disanayaka Mudiyanselage Migolle Gedara Lalitha Geethanjana Disanayaka was then called to give evidence-in-chief as the first witness for the day. His evidence concerned statements allegedly made by the 3rd accused, Hayaththu Mohammed Ahammadu Milhan, and the 8th accused, Mohammed Fridaus, purportedly under Section 27(1) of the Evidence Ordinance.
Prior to the witness giving evidence, the learned Judges explained to the respective accused the evidentiary value and permissible use of statements made under Section 27(1), particularly in relation to accused persons who have not made admissions of guilt.
P.W. 1958 thereafter gave evidence regarding the statements allegedly made by the aforesaid accused persons and the manner in which the relevant productions were recovered pursuant to the information contained in those statements. Certain contradictions arose in the course of his evidence.
Mr. Kanil Maddumage AAL cross-examined the witness on behalf of his clients, including the 2nd and 8th accused. In respect of the 8th accused, it was specifically put to the witness that the 8th accused had never made such a statement to any officer of the CID or to any other person.
Court thereafter adjourned for the lunch interval from 12.15 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
As discussed in the morning, during the lunch interval the learned Judges convened a meeting with all counsel appearing in the matter regarding the commencement of the Defence case. The meeting lasted approximately one hour.
At the meeting, all counsel agreed that the Defence case would formally commence on Friday, 7 August 2026. It was further agreed that several days, approximately three days, would thereafter be allocated for proceedings from morning until evening, in order to facilitate the correction of the case proceedings and consultations between Defence counsel and their respective clients, with suitable time being allocated between court proceedings and client consultations.
Court resumed at 1.30 p.m. The 3rd, 4th and 5th accused thereafter cross-examined P.W. 1958 in relation to the alleged statements made under Section 27(1).
The position taken on behalf of the 3rd accused was that he had never made such a statement to any officer of the CID or elsewhere, nor had he made any statement of that nature at all. It was further contended that the statement was recorded in Sinhala and that, at the material time, the 3rd accused was unable to properly read, write or speak Sinhala.
The 3rd accused further maintained that he signed documents presented to him by CID officers only because he had been threatened that, unless he signed the documents and inserted the dates as instructed, his wife and brother would not be released from remand. He stated that he signed the documents solely for the purpose of securing their release.
On behalf of the 4th and 5th accused, several contradictions and inconsistencies were brought out in the oral evidence of the witness as well as in his notes.
Certain matters arising from the evidence were subsequently clarified and corrected through re-examination.
At approximately 6.00 p.m., the second for the day witness, P.W. 2303, Mohammed Fasmin, was called to give evidence. The witness is a merchant by profession and is engaged in the sale of washing machines and air-conditioner spare parts. His evidence concerned a purchase allegedly made from his shop, Jeikir Electricals, in 2019, during the period proximate to the bomb blasts. The item allegedly purchased was a washing-machine panel board. However, the witness was unable to identify the person who had allegedly made the purchase among those present in Court. A CR book was shown to the witness, which he identified as the daily sales record of the shop. However, even upon reference to the said record, he maintained that he was certain that none of the persons present in Court had purchased the relevant item from his shop. There was no cross-examination or re-examination of this witness.
One further witness who had been scheduled to give evidence today was postponed until 5 August, as two productions relevant to his evidence had been transferred to the Batticaloa High Court in connection with Case No. HCB 3421/21. The learned Judge directed that the said productions be returned to the present Court on or before 4 August 2026.
Thereafter, the proceedings were concluded for the day at approximately 6.30 p.m.
Next Date: 3rd August 2026 for further trial.
