Court acquits teen convicted of rape, cites serious doubts in prosecution case

• Accused acquitted after serving nearly one year in jail

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

The Court of Appeal has acquitted a 19-year-old boy who had been convicted and sentenced to 10 years jail term by the Tangalle High Court for raping a 14-year-old girl, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in evidence and that it was unsafe to sustain the conviction on the available evidence.  The accused was acquitted following a Court of Appeal judgement after serving nearly one year in jail. 

The Court observed that although the complainant alleged full sexual intercourse had taken place, the Judicial Medical Officer who examined her found no such evidence. 

Allowing the appeal, a two-judge bench comprising Justice P. Kumararatnam and Justice Pradeep Hettiarachchi set aside both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the High Court. 

The accused had been convicted after a non-jury trial of committing rape on June 20, 2019, and was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, fined Rs. 5,000, and ordered to pay Rs. 350,000 as compensation to the complainant. 

The prosecution alleged that the victim, then a Grade 10 student aged 14, had been sexually assaulted inside her home after the accused allegedly forced his way into the house and raped her. The complaint was lodged approximately two weeks after the alleged incident. 

In challenging the conviction, counsel for the accused argued that the trial judge had failed to properly evaluate contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, inconsistencies between the complainant’s testimony and the medical evidence, uncertainty regarding the date of the alleged offence, and the appellant’s dock statement. 

Delivering the judgement, Justice Kumararatnam observed that the evidence of the complainant was affected by doubts and ambiguities and could not safely be relied upon to sustain a criminal conviction. 

The court further observed that the complainant’s aunt, who was informed of the incident about 15 days later, was unable to clearly describe what had been disclosed to her. In addition, the complainant’s mother testified that her daughter had reported an attempted rape, whereas the prosecution case was one of completed rape. 

Reiterating established principles of criminal law, the Court emphasised that the burden of proving a criminal charge always rests on the prosecution and never shifts to the defence. It also reaffirmed that where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. 

Having reviewed the entire record, the Court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence was marred by serious shortcomings and ambiguities and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 

Counsel Sandeepani Wijesooriya appeared for the accused. Deputy Solicitor General Anoopa De Silva appeared for the Attorney General.