Homagama High Court acquits man in 2016 murder of Supreme Court stenographer

By Bhagya Silva

Homagama High Court Judge Navarathna Marasinghe acquitted a man who had been indicted on charges of murder over the death of a retired stenographer of the Supreme Court, allegedly strangled in 2016.
Delivering the judgement, the High Court Judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of murder against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the indictment, the victim, a retired stenographer of the Supreme Court, had been found dead at her residence in 2016. Investigations were launched following a complaint made by her husband, who alleged that his wife had been strangled to death. The accused, a labourer who had come to the house with a mason to carry out renovation work, was later arrested and indicted for murder. In the judgement, the judge raised the question: “Has the prosecution proved the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence?” The judge observed that the prosecution had not presented any direct eyewitness evidence to prove that it was the accused who committed the murder on May 9, 2016. The husband of the deceased had testified that the accused had accompanied a mason named Ananda to pour concrete at the residence a few days before the incident. Even though the court held that such evidence alone was insufficient to infer that the accused was responsible for the killing. The judge further noted that the prosecution had failed to establish that the offence was committed solely by the accused. No evidence had been presented to show that the accused was in the vicinity of the victim’s house on the day of her death. The investigating officer had testified that a footprint and two fingerprints were found at the spot where the deceased had fallen. The court pointed out that there was no evidence to show that these prints had been compared with those of the accused. Although a police officer had stated that the victim’s chain was missing, the husband and son of the deceased had not provided any evidence to support that the jewellery had, in fact, been stolen. The court also noted that while the accused had given a statement in court claiming that the contractor Ananda had given him a mobile phone to keep, which he later sold, this statement had not been contradicted by Ananda himself, who was a prosecution witness. After reviewing all the evidence presented during the lengthy trial, the judge concluded, “The prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased, Manel Panagoda, died as a result of strangulation. It has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the accused and no one else, who caused her death.” Accordingly, the judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt and that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. Judge Marasinghe therefore found the accused not guilty of the charge of murder and ordered his acquittal and release from the indictment.