CA issues notice returnable for 26 Jan. on Navy officer in Raviraj revision application

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Court of Appeal yesterday reissued a notice returnable for 26 January on Navy officer Sampath, who is said to be still absconding, in respect of the revision application filed by aggrieved party petitioner Sasikala Raviraj seeking the Court to revise and set aside the order of the High Court Judge allowing the request of the accused for the case to be tried before a jury as well as his verdict of acquittal.

Justice Kumudini Wickramasinghe fixed for mention on 26 January to ascertain whether the accused-respondent received notice.

Court granted time till 21 February to the two other accused-respondents Gamini Seneviratne and Pradeep Chaminda alias Vajira to file objections.

Deputy Solicitor General Rohantha Abeysuriya on 19 June 2017 informed the Court that the second accused-respondent Navy officer Sampath, who had been reinstated by the Navy after having been acquitted by the High Court in the Raviraj murder case, has disappeared.

The Deputy Solicitor General had also told Court that the accused-respondent Navy officer Chandana Kumara alias Sampath was reinstated by the Navy after his acquittal from the murder case but he is wanted by the police in another case.

He had also told Court that the wife of the absconding accused-respondent has lodged a complaint with the police that her husband has disappeared.

Counsel M.A. Sumathiran PC had on 28 March 2017 pleaded for the Court to issue a directive to the CID to trace the whereabouts of the three accused including Navy officer Sampath and report to Court.

He had brought to the notice of the Court that the main accused, the second accused Navy officer, is wanted in another case of abduction and the killing of 11 persons in Colombo and he is absconding while the Magistrate’s Court has issued a warrant for his arrest.

Counsel Sumanthiran had also asked for the whereabouts of the accused as the Attorney General had told Court that the Navy could not serve notices on them.

He brought to the notice of the Court that the Attorney General’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused was pending and he asked Court to consolidate that appeal with the revision application.

In the revision application the aggrieved party-victim petitioner Sasikala Raviraj is seeking Court to find the accused guilty of all or several of the offences charged and sentence them according to the law.

She is asking Court to otherwise call for a re-trial by the judge of the High Court without a jury.

She cited the accused Palanisami Suresh alias Sami and navy officers Chandana Kumara alias Sampath, Gamini Seneviratne, Pradeep Chaminda alias Vajira along with S. Vivekananthan alias Charan and Fabian Roiston Tusen as accused-respondents and the Attorney General.

Sumanthiran, with Niran Anketell instructed by Moahan Balendra, appeared for the aggrieved party.

The petitioner states that the first, fifth and sixth accused were not arraigned before Court while the first accused was said to be deceased and the fifth and sixth accused were said to be absconding.

 She states that Raviraj and one other person were assassinated on 10 November 2006.

The Attorney General filed an indictment against the accused and when the case was taken up prior to trial the Counsel for the accused made an application to the High Court that the accused be tried by a Sinhala-speaking Jury.

The counsel representing the aggrieved party objected to the said application and written submissions were made, she states.

The indictment in the instant case included charges relating to offences specified in the Prevention of Terrorism Act as well as offences specified in the penal code, she states.

Petitioner Sasikala Raviraj maintains that it was the procedure specified by the PTA which would override any other procedure stipulated by the regular criminal code and contends that in this case that requires that the trial be by a judge without a jury as specified in Section 15 (1) of the PTA.

 She states that the High Court Judge on 23 December 2016 made an order overruling the objection of the petitioner and allowing a trial by a special jury. She said the High Court Judge, after addresses to the jury by the Attorney General and the Counsel for the aggrieved party, charged the jury in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that he also charged the jury to provide a verdict in respect of all the charges in the indictment, including those relating to the PTA.

After the jury’s deliberations on 24 December 2016, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in respect of all the accused for all charges in the indictment and the High Court Judge thereafter discharged the accused, she states.

Petitioner Sasikala Raviraj seeks the revisionary power of the Court of Appeal as to whether the High Court Judge has erred or misdirected himself and the jury in law by ordering a trial by jury where the indictment contains a charge of the commission of an offence or offences under the PTA as well as by failing to consider or fully appreciate Section 15 (1) of the PTA which specially requires a trial by a judge without a jury. (CD)