Sexual offences jeopardise women’s safety and cultural values, says Court of Appeal

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

The Court of Appeal in a recent judgment warned that the best interests of women are increasingly under threat due to the rise in sexual offences, observing that such a trend poses serious risks to future generations and undermines public trust within communities.  

These observations were made while partly allowing an appeal filed by a village Kapurala who was convicted of raping a 20-year-old woman after deceiving her and her parents by falsely claiming that he possessed powers connected with black magic.  

Delivering the judgment, Court of Appeal Justice Amal Ranaraja, with Justice Sasi Mahendran concurring, observed that beyond the immediate physical harm caused by such offences, many young lives are either shattered or deeply traumatised, with their futures derailed. The Court stressed that the psychological consequences for victims, as well as the long-term impact on families and society, must be treated as matters of paramount concern.  

The accused had been indicted before the Kandy High Court for committing the offence of rape, punishable under Section 364(1) of the Penal Code, in relation to an incident that occurred on or about July 26, 2014.  

Following the conclusion of the trial, the High Court sentenced the accused to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 15,000. The Court also ordered the accused to pay Rs.1 million as compensation to the victim.  

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, contending that the sentence imposed by the High Court was disproportionate and excessive.  

Appearing for the Attorney General, Additional Solicitor General Shanil Kularatne submitted that the accused had deliberately deceived both the victim and her parents by falsely presenting himself as capable of performing acts connected with black magic, when in fact he was employed as a labourer at a government institution and possessed no such abilities.  

Defence Counsel Amila Palliyage, appearing for the accused, sought a variation of the sentence, submitting that the accused was 35 years old at the time of the offence, had no previous convictions or pending cases, and was a first-time offender. Counsel further informed Court that the accused was married and a father of two children.  

Taking into consideration the fact that the offence had not been repeated against the victim and that the accused had no prior convictions or pending cases, the Court of Appeal set aside the original sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and instead imposed a sentence of 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment.