Date: 13th August 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 case was taken up before the Trial-at-Bar with all accused present, except the 17th accused, who had passed away. The 2nd, 7th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th accused were represented by Mr. Kaneel Maddumage, AAL. The 12th and 13th accused were represented by Mr. Ravindu Yasas, AAL. The 20th to 25th accused were represented by Mr. Mayuran Mahalingam AAL under the instructions of Mr. Sanjeewa Ruwanpathirana, AAL. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th, 14th, and 16th accused appeared in person.
The witness PW 2036, Bimshani Jasinghearachchi (DIG) was cross examined by the counsel for the 12th accused. The witness attended court to mark specific portions of the confessional statement given by the 12th accused initially marked temporarily as N1 and subsequently marked permanently as P-919 following a court order determining it was given voluntarily. During the proceedings, the defense marked 11 specific portions of the statement as 12 D 15(1) through 12 D 15(11), and further questioned whether the witness did any investigation regarding the statement of the 12th accused. The witness answered that she did not conduct any investigation and had merely recorded the statement as she was not the investigating officer. During the cross-examination by the 9th accused, the witness was questioned about specific names mentioned in the statement, such as Nowfer and an army officer named Milhan, and whether photographs or background checks were done. The witness clarified that she did not conduct those investigations herself and only recorded what was presented, leaving those inquiries to the investigating officers. During the cross-examination by the eleventh accused, the witness acknowledged that without verifying the contents through an investigation, one cannot confirm whether the contents are true or false. Additionally, the witness response is affirmative that the statement could not be considered entirely independent since it was taken while the 12th accused was being held in police custody.
The prosecution’s calling of witnesses was concluded, following which formal admissions relating to the suicide bombers were recorded pursuant to Section 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the Government Analyst’s DNA reports were marked as productions, namely P-2072 relating to Mubarak, P-2073 relating to Mohamed Cassim Mohamed Saharan, P-2074 relating to the bio-sample analysis of Saharan and mohomad Ilhaim, P-2075 and P-2076 relating to Inshaf Ahamed, Thereafter, the necessary corrections of the proceedings happened.
The prosecution case was formally concluded upon the marking of productions P-1 to P-2076. The prosecution’s case commenced on 10 October 2023 and continued until 13th August 2026. Out of a total of 2,309 listed prosecution witnesses, 547 witnesses were called and gave evidence.
Thereafter, at the conclusion of the prosecution case, the Court explained to the accused their rights to enter upon their defence, including the right to give evidence, call witnesses, and produce evidence in support of their defence, or to elect not to give evidence. The Court also explained the distinction between giving sworn evidence and making a statement from the dock.
Accordingly, the matter was fixed for 14 August 2026 at 10.00 a.m. On that date, the Defence is expected to formally inform the Court that the position of them regarding the commencement of the defence case, including whether it intends to make a Dock statement and whether the accused will give evidence and be subject to cross-examination.
Next date: 14 August 2026 at 10.00 a.m.
