From Flames to Final Judgment: The Kahawatta Murder Appeal Dismissed

Case Summary: CA HCC 64/2024

Parties Involved:

• Complainant-Respondent: Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12
• Accused-Appellant: Sinnathambi Kumarasami

Facts of the Case:
On March 21, 2011, in Kahawatta, Ratnapura District, Krishnapille Chandra Kumari, a widow living alone, was found in flames in her residence. Neighbors PW1 and PW3 responded to her screams around 8:00 PM and found her severely burned with Sinnathambi Kumarasami, the appellant, present at the scene. Despite efforts to extinguish the fire, both the deceased and the appellant sustained injuries. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on March 29, 2011.

A dying declaration was recorded by PW6, a police officer, on March 26, 2011, implicating the appellant. The High Court of Ratnapura found Kumarasami guilty of murder under Section 296 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death. Kumarasami appealed the verdict.

Issues:

1. Whether the High Court erred in law regarding the admissibility and evaluation of the dying declaration.
2. Whether there was misdirection in assessing the evidence, especially concerning the medical evidence and reasonable doubt surrounding the dying declaration.
3. Whether the appellant’s actions and presence at the crime scene established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis:
The appeal centered on the dying declaration’s validity, recorded when the deceased was critically injured. The appellant argued that the deceased was incapable of making coherent statements due to her condition. However, PW6 confirmed the deceased was stable and coherent when the statement was recorded, with the matron’s permission obtained before proceeding.

Medical evidence by Dr. I. A. Rathnayake indicated that the cause of death was extensive burns, but did not conclusively state that the deceased was incapable of speech. Additionally, discrepancies in PW4’s (deceased’s daughter) testimony about her mother’s ability to speak were noted, but these did not undermine the validity of the dying declaration.

The appellant’s defense was inconsistent. Initially, he claimed he found the deceased in flames after briefly stepping out. Later, he suggested she set herself on fire deliberately. These contradictions weakened his credibility. Furthermore, he did not offer substantial efforts to save the deceased, nor did he seek immediate help, raising questions about his intent.

Legal precedents cited included Sumanasena vs. Attorney General, where failure to explain incriminating evidence was seen as detrimental to the defense. Similarly, King vs. Thajudeen established that intent can be inferred from the consequences of one’s actions, reinforcing the appellant’s culpability.

Judgment:
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the death sentence. The judges found no merit in the grounds of appeal, concluding that the dying declaration was admissible and credible. The appellant’s explanations were deemed afterthoughts, failing to counter the prosecution’s strong evidence.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment and sentence were maintained. The case highlights the critical role of dying declarations in criminal proceedings, the importance of consistent testimony, and the implications of failing to address incriminating evidence effectively.