Beyond Conviction: The Role of Natural Justice in Criminal Appeals

Case Summary

1. Parties Involved:

• Accused-Appellant-Petitioner: Don Gamage Rupasinghe of Ekamuthupura Road, Nakkala, Monaragala.
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Officer-In-Charge, Miscellaneous Complaints Division, Monaragala Police Station.
• Respondent-Respondent: Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

2. Facts of the Case:

The accused, Don Gamage Rupasinghe, was charged in the Magistrate’s Court of Monaragala (Case No. 85352) for two offenses:

1. Criminal Trespass under Section 433 of the Penal Code.
2. Mischief by Setting Fire to Property under Section 418 of the Penal Code, involving goods valued at Rs. 13,590.

The incident allegedly occurred on 12 January 2018 at Ekamuthupura Road, where Rupasinghe was accused of trespassing and setting fire to movable property belonging to PW-01 (Post Mistress of the Sub-Post Office where the accused previously worked). The case revealed personal animosity due to the accused’s suspension from work.

After trial, the Magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced him to:

• Count 1: Rs. 100 fine (default: 1-month simple imprisonment).
• Count 2: 6 months of rigorous imprisonment (suspended for 5 years) and Rs. 1,500 fine (default: 2 months’ simple imprisonment).

Rupasinghe appealed the conviction to the Provincial High Court of Uva Province (Monaragala), which dismissed the appeal but enhanced the sentence, citing the original punishment as inadequate.

3. Legal Issues:

1. Was the conviction valid based on the evidence presented?
2. Did the Provincial High Court follow proper procedure when enhancing the sentence without hearing the accused’s objections?
3. Was there a miscarriage of justice due to procedural irregularities?
4. Did the Court of Appeal have the authority to revise the case under Article 138 of the Constitution?

4. Judgment:

The Court of Appeal (Judges Sampath B. Abayakoon and Amal Ranaraja) found serious procedural errors in the handling of the case:

• The evidence presented at trial was unsatisfactory. Key witnesses (PW-01’s son and his friend) were biased, and there was no direct eyewitness account from PW-01 herself.
• No video evidence was submitted, despite claims that the incident was recorded.
• The enhancement of the sentence by the High Court was done without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem).

The Court cited precedents like Bandara v. Republic of Sri Lanka (2002) and SC/SPL/LA No. 201/2006, emphasizing that any increase in punishment requires giving the accused a chance to respond.

Considering these factors, the Court of Appeal set aside:

• The conviction (12-05-2020) and sentence (14-12-2021) from the Magistrate’s Court.
• The High Court judgment (02-11-2023) that dismissed the appeal and enhanced the sentence.

The Court acquitted Rupasinghe of all charges, citing a miscarriage of justice due to procedural irregularities.

5. Conclusion:

The case highlights the importance of fair trial procedures and adherence to natural justice principles in Sri Lanka’s legal system. The failure to provide the accused an opportunity to contest the enhanced sentence was a critical procedural flaw. Additionally, the weak and biased evidence, coupled with inconsistencies in witness testimonies, undermined the conviction’s credibility. The Court of Appeal’s intervention under Article 138 was justified, leading to Rupasinghe’s acquittal and restoration of justice.