Contract
1. ෛවවාහක &වස
2. CCTV කැමරා සහ සාB\ W&ය
3. Judgment
“&&ාcs &&w
පp ය නකg සෙහSදර වෘ&&කෙයB && මා සමග කළ සාක ඡාවB ෙහ ąෙව& ෙමම ෙක
!"ය සකස් &8මට මා &ąෙව' .න)& ෙමය &යවන ට ඔබට අපහpතාවB ඇ& ▇ හැක . මB&සාදය&, පැහැ ! ආර2භයB ෙහS අවසානයB ෙන4මැ& &සාෙව&.
ඇය && සාක ඡා කළ ක5ණ ෙක ෙය& සඳහ& කර&ෙ& න2 ඒ සහ A වාහ 8 ඇ& අතර ඒ
වාහය &සාෙව& ඔ:&ට ද5ව;ද &< වාහය ෙකෙරන අවස්ථාෙ>g .ඒ ෙł ෙදමා"ය& ෙ@පලB ඒ ට තෑ g ඇ& අතර ෙදපා&ශවෙ$ ෛවවාහක &වස 8 ඇ&ෙ& එයQෙකෙස ෙවත& ෙදපා&ශවය . අතර ආර:I ඇ& 8ම ąළඒ &µ කර ඇ&ෙ& එA ෙ@පල A ට& ෙහ4රා නැවත& ෙදමා"ය&ට තෑ &8මQ ෙ2 &සා ෙදමා"ය& එ&තරවා&යB ම & .ඒ සහ A ට ද&වා ඇ&ෙ& තම&ට S' අදාළ
ෙ@පෙල& "ටව ෙන4ය&ෙ&න2 නM පවරා ඉ& ඉව& &8මට කටOą කරන බවQෙ2 .
එ&තරවා&ෙය& පpවඒ ඊට "ළąරBද යවා අදාළ ෙ@පෙල& ඉව&ව ෙග4ස් ඇ& න)& A තවම& එA ෙ@පෙI තම ද5වාද සමග &R &< ෙ2 අතර ෙදමා"ය& .ඒ ව සහ A ව අදාළ ෙ@පෙල& ඉව&
&8මට නM පවරා ඇත ෙමQ& .ඒ සවා' S5ෂයා වන අතර A UVඳ ෙ>සෙහSදර වෘ&&කයා ෙපW .
& &ෙ&A ට වන අතර අවසානෙ$ ;මB ෙ> ද ය&න අප සාක ඡා කරන ල එA සාක ඡාෙව& .
.ක5X AපයB ෙමSg දBවා ඇත
වාහය ය@ ෙදපා&ශවයB අතර ඇ& වන pම&එය පැහැ ! කර&ෙ&න2 ., වාහය ය@ Z ත කාලය ąළ S5ෂය; සහ ස්ØයB එBව අ&;& S5ෂය& සහ ස්Øය& අතහැර Zව& 8ම සඳහා ඇ& කර ග@ ලබන pම&ඒ &සා එB වාහයB පව&@g තව& වාහයB කර ගැWම සඳහා .
වාහය ෙ2 අ@ව pමB :ව& .අවසරයB W&ෙය& ලබා ෙන4ෙ@, එය පැහැ !වම අ&;&
p2 ව!& ෙවනසව
න ෙශෂ
pම&එය W&යට අ@ව පා&ශවය&ෙł කැමැ&ෙත& ඇ& කර .
ඊට .ගත හැ& pමB :ව& පා&ශවය&ෙł කැමැ&ෙත& අවස& කළ හැ& pමB ෙන4ෙ>
ෙw ąව ව&ෙ& අදාළ pම, ඉ& £yෙඳන පා&@වe&ෙł ▇&&▇▇&, ෙදෙදනා අත6 සw 6De අත6 £yRමB ඇ& වන ආකා6ෙe& වගA2 ඇ& &8මg ෙw ą 8මQ වාweB අවස& ක6 ගත . එe ෙමSg පyS ! &8මg 5&සw ෙන4කළ& එe 9£ ෙw4g& .wyBෙB 6Dෙ$ මy w& 8ෙම&
. W&ෙ$g ෙ@ෂeB ෙc&& පවAෙමA £yRම සාමානa .ද&නා ක5ණB £ව මා @්වාස ක6'
ඉ Vප& ▇ ඇ& &@Aෙ$g පy'cIc && නM පව6ා ඇ&ෙ& ඒ සw A ව 9:&ෙł ෛවවාwක &ව&& ඉව& &8මg ෙ>පVෙපSෂණ වගAම අ@ව .එS ඇ& ▇&&▇▇ අප එSg මදB මpෙව) . ඒ අ@ව ෙමම &@Aෙ$g .U6ඳකg ෙවවාwක &වසB සyපdෙ2 වගAම S5ෂeාg &ෙeඒ && අදාළ වගAම ඉ3 ක6 &ෙeන)& ▇▇& එA &ව .ස ෙතවන පා&@වeB && අQ&වා&ක2 &e@ c£න &වසB £වg ප&ව &ෙe එෙස ව&ෙ& .ඒ && ▇)&g cy@@ තaාගe, නyවත&
ෙදමා"e&g තෑග ▇▇ &සාෙව&.
වාwe අ6)X ක6 ග&'& ෙද@ c£න තaාගeB එA වාwe &µ ෙන4ව&ෙ&න2, W&e අ@ව වc◦i තaාගeB ෙන4ෙ> න)& ෙමම &@Aෙ$g ඉ Vප& 8 ඇ& සාB\ අ@ව .ඒ && තම&ෙł
ෙදමා"e&g අදාළ ෙ@පc තෑ g ඇ&ෙ& ඒ සw A අත6 ආ6:I ඇ& 3 &සාෙව&ෙ@පc තෑ . &8ෙම& පpවඒ එQ& "gව ෙග4ස් ඇත ඒ අ@ව ෛවවාwක &ව&& £ywy6ව ෙග4ස් ඇ&ෙ& .ඒ වන අත6 එe අ@'ත @ෙ>@ සwගත wy6eාමB ද e&න A6ණe ව&ෙ& ඒ ස2£&ධෙe& 3 නMව&&ෙමම &@Aeg අදාළ නMව l!ක ව@ෙe& ම .න)& ෙමe එව& නMවB ෙන4ෙ> . ▇▇&&▇& ෙතවන පා&@වeB && ෛවවාwක OවළB 9:&ෙł ෛවවාwක &ව&& ෙන6mම
එෙස ම .ස2£&ධෙe&ඒ, එන2 සවා' S5ෂeා අදාළ &ව&& ඉව&ව ෙග4ස් ඇත .ඒ, A සමග ▇▇&
8මg 9yg අපwp £ව ęකා@ ක6'& මාන වන ක5ණ ව&ෙ&ඒ අ@ව ගමa .ඒ සw 9yෙł
ෙදමා"e& එBව අදාළ ෙ@පළ ගXෙද@ව &µ ක6 ඇ&ෙ& A ව එම ෙ@පෙc& ඉව& &8මg වන
£වQඒ අ@ව මąවන අ&B ක5ණ ව&ෙ& &&ක5වක .◌, වන ඒ, පy'cIc සමග එBව කgOą ක6න £වQ එQ& .A g අග&eB &µ වන £ව පywy ! ෙ>.
ෛවවාwක &වස පා r &8ම සඳwා UVඳකg ඇ& අQ&e ęධාන ව@ෙe&ම පVෙපSෂණ වගAෙ2
ෙක4gසB ෙc&& සw සy'eා සමග එBව Zව&8ෙ2g cyෙ£න අQ&eB ෙc&& පවAඑe ස්වා' .
S5ෂeාෙł වගAම&සෑම සවා' S5ෂෙeBම තම&ෙł UVඳg වාසස්9ානeB c£ා gෙ2 .
සමw6 අවස9ා වcg UVඳg &වසB අQ& වන අවස්9ා ඇ& අත6 එ g .වගAෙම& £yR &<
e2 .ෛවවාwක UVඳකෙł ෙ@පc අQ&වා&ක2 "s£ඳ ආඥාපනත ඒ ස2£&ධෙe& අදාළ ෙ>
ෙwe&& U6ඳ ෛවවාwක ව6දB ක6&ෙ&න2, ඒ අ@ව ෛවවාwක &වස සyපdෙ2 වගAෙම&
S5ෂeා 'ෙදන £වB ද ෙ2 අ@ව ෙපW eQ .න)& ▇▇ අAක6ණe && &@චe කළ ▇&▇& .
ෙකෙස ෙවත& ෙමම &µ8ෙ2g &වස සyපdමඒ && &µ ක6 &U&එෙසම ෛවවාwක ව6ද .
@්නගතක:5& && &µ කෙළ ද e&න "s£ඳවද ęෙන4 & ඒ අ@ව .ඒ g A ෙව@ෙව&
ෛවවාwක &වසB සyපdෙ2 වගAම තවම& පව&න £ව ෙපW eQ.
Canekeratne ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1968) 71 NLR 522 නMෙ>g A6ණe ඇ&ෙ& “A wife who has been deserted by her husband is not liable to be ejected by her husband from the matrimonial home (unless alternative accommodation or substantial maintenance to go and live elsewhere is offered to her).” ෙc&&.
“A wife does not remain lawfully in the matrimonial home by leave or licence of her husband as the owner of the property. She remains there because, as a result of the status of marriage, it is her right and duty so to do and, if her husband fails in his duty to remain there, that cannot affect her right to do so. She is not a trespasser, she is not a licensee of her husband, she is lawfully there as a wife, the situation is one sui generis. She may be described as a licensee if that word means no more than one who is lawfully present, but it is objectionable for the description of anyone as a licensee at once conjures up the notion of a licensor, which her deserting husband most emphatically is not.” National Provincial Bank Ltd. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ [(1965) 2 A. E. R. 472]
“Where the husband is the owner of the property occupied by the couple, he has no right, while the marriage is in existence, to eject his wife from it without providing her with suitable alternative accommodation. Her occupation is not by licence of her husband but is sui generis. Similarly, the wife has no right to eject her husband from the matrimonial home merely because the property belongs to her. Because he is her husband he has rights flowing from the marriage which in relation to that property 130 put him in a category differing toto coeli from that of a stranger.” ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Others v. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (2002) 1 Sri LR 169
Alwis ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1970) 73 NLR 337 නMවද ෙ2 ස2£&ධෙe& වyදග& නMව&.
න)& ෙමම &µ8ෙ2g UVඳව ඉව& &8මg නM පව6@ cy£ ඇ&ෙ& ෙතවන පා&@වeB && ෙ> .
එෙw& ෙමSg .එෙස ම එම නMෙ> UVඳ සමග සම &&ක5ව; ව&ෙ& සවා' S5ෂeාe 9y
පy'c!ක5ව& සමග එBව කgOą ක6Qමාන ව&ෙ& 9y තම UVඳව ෛවවාwක එQ& ගමa .
.&ව&& ඉව& &8ම සඳwා අපසwාeකe; ෙc&& කgOą ක6න £වQ
ඉwත ක5X &e8ෙ2g "sෙවcකg ක5X ගcා eාමB 9£g wvනා ගyWමg ෙන4wy& ව@ ඇත . න)& ව&තමානෙ$ WAඥව5වන අපg wම◌, e wy& ▇▇ &'&තB ෙමS ඇąළ& ෙ> .
වcg අත6ම◦වන W&ෙ>g& ෛවවාwක වගAම සw ෙ@පc W&e ස2£&ධෙe& ෙමව& අවස්9ා පy'cIc අ&වා&ෙe&ම ෙ@පc W&e ස2£&ධෙe& ක5X ඉ Vප& .ආකා6e දBනg cyෙe &8මg කgOą ක6න අත6 ඒ 9ස්ෙස ෛවවාwක වගAම egෙ& ඇ& UVඳg වෛ◌වාwක &වසB සyපdමg S5ෂeාg ඇ& අQ&e egප& වන ආකා6eg W&e ඉ Vප& ක6Qeා &8මg &&eg Ø . &µ ව&ෙ& ෙ@පc W&ෙe& ඇ& ක6න වගA2 වcg වඩා වy4 අQ&වා&ක2 පVෙපSෂණ වගAම egෙ& මą වන ෛවවාwක &වස c£ා ගyWමg UVඳg ඇ& අQ&e ඉws& පව&න £වg 9$S වන ආකා6ෙe&එB .ෙ2 &සා ෙදපා&@වeම ඉ Vප& ක6@ c£න අAක6ණeg S{I වගAමB පවA . අත&& UVඳකෙł අQ&වා&ක2 p&&e Oą වන අත6 අෙනB ප&& ෙ@පc S'ක5ෙł S'ක2
.එe ඉතා අපwp කා&eB £ව මෙł අදwසQ .p&Aමgද &µ ෙ>
**********
CCTV sැමරා wc wා& &ය
ෙ2 ෙවනෙක4g CCTV කyම6ා c◦කාෙ> Dන සමාDෙ$ &ත6 සාක 8ාෙවන මාතaකාවB ෙවcා . පp e දවස් වc ෙන4ෙe;& අප6ාධ ක6S සyකක5ෙවS Aප ෙදන;ම අ&අඩ◦iවg ග&න
.ද&&න cy@නා ,ෙeS 5පකා6 3 £ව අw&නෙප4|&eg ෙ2 අ@ව ෙ6ෙකS} ෙවcා &e£ 84
5දාw6ණeB eg වාස් iණව&ධන සyකක5ව; :ෙන& ෙ2 CCTV කyම6ා අ@ව සgw& 3
84ෙeSවB &සාෙ> නeකව eාතනe කළ සyකකා6 ෙ$& £ාස්ෙł lණ& මෑතකg මාධa .
තwMව& ෙ2 egCCTV කyම6ාවක සgw&ෙවcා &e£ අද ෙ2 ගyන ෙ2 eg කතා කළ& .
CCTV කyම6ා ගyන )I කාcෙ$g අෙ$ Dන සමාDෙ$ ඒ ත62 ෙw4ඳ "sගyWමB &eෙe නෑමතකද .
ද&ෙ& නෑ )I කාෙI ඇv2 කඩ වc e 9& කාමෙ& ගwcා &e£ කyම6ා ව!& ෙකIෙcS ඇv2
.න)& ▇▇& ▇&&▇▇ ෙවනස් .මා5 ක6නවා 84ෙeS ක6cා අy ෙව ච අවස්9ා
ම& ඒ& කIපනා කෙළ ෙ2 කyම6ා ව!& ග&න 84ෙeS අප6ාධ අAක6ණeකg සාB\ eg
ෙe4දා ග&ෙ& ෙම4න ę&පාදන ව!& ද &ecාඅද ෙව@g වාcD මwාAක6ණෙ$ g 84ෙeS .
ෙłම එB සාක 8ා ම & c£ා ෙදන සාB\ ආෙ>@ &8මg අවස9
ාව සcසස
cා &ෙeනවා ව
ඒ වෙłම අප6ාධ නMවB ස2£&ධෙe@& ෙ2 .අවස්9ාවකg පාවrr ක6c& &ෙeනවා
ආකා6ෙe& 84ෙeS සාB\ග&න &ෙeSගeB මwාAක6ණe &@& ක6cා &ෙeන £ව පp e
නeකg ආ6◦r :නාළමe;ෙł සාB\ ස2£&ධෙe& වන gg 84ෙeS සාB\ , g අමත6ව .
.කළ ස◦ෙ@Sධනෙe& wv&වා g &ෙ£නවා 1999 ආෙ>@ &8ෙ2 අවස්9ාව සාB\ ආඥාපනතg
න)& ෙ2 ක9ා කළ අවස්9ා& CCTV කyම6ා ෙ6ෙකS4& &e&ෙ& ස2ę&ණ ෙවනස් අවස්9ා
ෙදකB eා&මක ෙවනeව Øස්වe◦ .CCTV කyම6ා ව!& දවස් ගානB &ස්ෙස ස්වe◦Aeව 84ෙeS
ෙ6ෙකS} ෙවනවාඑෙwම .ඒවා තy&ප& ෙව&ෙ& එBෙකS ක2"Ogෙ& wා4 4ස්B එකක .
එතෙක4g ෙකන;g ෙ2 84ෙeS එකB සාB\▇▇ ▇ .නy&න2 ෙමමV r$ එකකg ෙගනාවම ඒ
84ෙeSෙ> &&වaාD&වe ගyන අSෙeSගeg cB ක6&න අවස්9ාවB cyෙ£නවාෙම4කද ඒ .
.mෙ එකB ෙවනස් ක6&න wy&eාවB &ෙeන &සා
අෙ$ W&ෙe& ෙ2 ෙවනක& CCTV කyම6ා wා තෙe& සවe◦ eව ෙ6ෙකS} ක6S 84ෙeS එකB
සw අ" ෙම4£QI ෙෆ4& එක&& ෙ6ෙකS} ක6S 84ෙeS එකB අතෙ6 පywy ! ෙවනසB
&ෙeනවාන)& ෙදවy&ෙන '&ස .ෙම4කද පළ)වy&ෙන '&ස; ▇▇ ▇& ෙව&ෙ& නෑ .
ෙ2 &සා 84ෙeS ක6S S@ගceාව අ&වා&ෙe&ම සාB\ක5ව; eg .eාවB &ෙeනවාØ
වාදක සාB\eB £වg ප&ෙවනඑෙwම නy&න2 ඒක ę .ඉ Vප& ක6&න ෙවනවාවා @්නeඒ ę .
CCTV කyම6ා ස2£&ධෙe& අදාළ ෙව&ෙ& නෑeව &µ වන ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB ෙw ąව ඒක සව
.8ම &සාෙව&
e◦ .
ෙ2 ,&පාදන ව!&ව&සාB\ ෙ@ෂ A ධාන පනෙ& ę 1995CCTV කyම6ාව&& ෙවන ෙ6ෙකS}
සමw6 g ෙł&න £yV ෙව&න S{ව& ඒ &සා ෙ2 ගyන අ{&& ▇& .wද&න ෙවන£වQ මෙł අදwස .ද&ෙ& නෑ ඒ ගyන ෙවනස් අදwස් &ෙ$ද &ecා .
CCTV කyම6ාව&& ස්වe◦ eව ෙ6ෙකS} ෙවන 84ෙeSවB අ"g ෙe4දා ග&න &ෙe&ෙ& l!ක ව@ෙe&ම සyකක5ව; wvනා ගyWමgධාන eg ආකා6 අ" ද&නවා wvනා ගyWෙ2 සාB\ ę .
ෙදක&& ඉ Vප& ක6&න S{ව& £ව .අ&ක පVෙ>@We සාB\ eg .එකB සa සාB\ eg .
දy& .ඇ&& µ3 සාB\eBන2 ඒක සa සාB\eB ෙවනවාCCTV කyම6ාව&& ස්වe◦ eව
ෙ6ෙකS} ෙවන අවස9ාවB අ" ෙ2 ෙදෙක& ෙම4න එකgද දා&ෙ& ?
දy& 5දාw6ණeB eg අ6 ඉස්ෙසIcා &eS ෙ$& £ාසඑeා . අප6ාදeB ක6නවා කyම6ාෙ>
සgw& ෙව&ෙ& නෑඑතෙක4g අ" .න)& අප6ාධ ස්9ානeg eෑම සw ඒම එS සඳw& ෙවනවා .
සyකක6වා wvනා ගyWමg ෙwS ව6දක6 තyනy&තා &ecා ෙප&න&න ෙe4දා ග&ෙ& ෙක4ෙw4මද
CCTV mෙ එකB ?
ෙ2 ගyන අෙ$ W& ▇▇▇ අe ▇▇&▇ Sත&න ඕනා
නy&න2 ඉ Vෙ$g ෙන4ෙe;
.W&e අ&&
ෙc&& ෙeද82 අපg අ& g&න cyෙ£Q &eන එකQ මෙł wy ම .
අAක6ණeකg අ"g ඕනා ඕනා සාB\ ෙද&න wy&eාවB අ"g W&ෙe& c£ා gcා නෑධාන ę .
වන 5 ව@ෙe&ම අ"g සාB\ ෙද&න S{ව& ෙම4නවා ගyනද &ecා සාB\ ආඥාපනෙ&
ඒ වෙłම ත
.වග&&ෙ$ &ecා &ෙeනවාමQ
වන වග&&ෙ$ &ෙeනවා සාB\ &e&ෙ& 3
.ෙම4නාද &ecා60 වන වග&&ෙ$ &ෙeනවා ෙw4ඳම සාB\ 8&e ගyන එතෙක4g ෙ2 .CCTV
ෙ6ෙකSඩන සාB\eB eg අ" අ@ c ක6&ෙ& ෙම4න ආකා6ෙe&ද &eන ę@්නe ෙ2 වග&& අ@ව අ&වා&ෙe&ම ඇ& ෙවනවා .
wvනා ගyWම "s£ඳ සාB\ c£ා ෙද&න S{ව& ෙව&ෙ& සාB\ ආඥාපනෙ& වන වග&&e 9
වන 9
5දාw6ණeB eg wvනා ගyWෙ2 ෙප6 3වකg සyකක5ව;ව wvනා ගyWම
.egෙ&
ෙ2 ස2£&ධෙe& 9eාcg £c&න S{ව& .▇▇&&▇▇& අ@ c ක6&න S{ව&Keerthi
Bandara v. Attorney General (2000) 2 Sri LR 245 ▇▇ A&µව .ෙ2 A&& £ ඩා6 නM A&µෙ> &eනවා ෙම&න ෙමෙwම ෙදeB .
”▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Rules' apply, wherever the case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence alleges to be mistaken"
Where the accused asserts and alleges that it is not a mistake but a frame up (like in this case) no useful purpose would be served by considering the '▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇' guide lines.
තවµ6g& ” "3ෙ>g 251In these attendant circumstances the question arises whether the
evidence volunteered by these witnesses refer to an identification in a fleeting glance or a fleeting encounter or not. We hold that if the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses is accepted as truthful, the identification in the instant case is not an identification effected in a fleeting glance or a fleeting encounter. In ▇▇▇ vs ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇(2) at 1227 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ in dealing with a similar contention that the directions given in ▇▇▇ vs ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (supra) were not applied to the identification issue which is alleged to have arisen in that case, succinctly, observed:
"This is not the sort of identity problem which ▇▇▇ vs ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is really intended to deal with. ▇▇▇ vs ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is primarily intended to deal with the ghastly risk run in cases of fleeting encounters. This certainly was not that kind of case".
We now proceed to consider whether the identification in the instant case having regard to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses has been accomplished in difficult conditions and circumstances. . eg දBවcා &ෙeනවා “
තවµ6g& ” "3ෙ>g 255
In these circumstances the issue arises whether a consideration and application of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ guide lines were necessary and whether such an exercise was an incumbent duty on the trial Judge. Our view is ;that the application of the said guide lines was not warranted having regard to the aforesaid attendant facts which have been already enumerated in our judgment. But we will assume for purposes of argument that such a consideration was necessary. . eg දBවcා &ෙeනවා “
Weerasinghe ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Hon. Attorney-General (C.A.No.58/2009 decided on 2012.10.03) නMෙ>g A6ණe ෙවcා &ෙeනවා ”It is also important to find out how long the witness was able to see the appellant at the time of the incident, whether it was a fleeting glance or on a longer observation under difficult conditions, or whether the witness was able to identify without any difficulty at all are matters that go to the quality of identification. It is important for the trial judges to have in mind as an evidentiary guidance the components laid down in the case of ▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ [1977] QB 224, CA). These guide lines are known as '▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Warning". eg .
ෙ2 &eන ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Rules ෙ2 ,අ@ව අදාළ ෙව&ෙ& fleeting encounters වcg £ව පywy !Q .
ෙ2 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Rules ,CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB ම & ක6@ c£න wvනා ගyWමකg අදාළ ෙවනවාද
නy@ද e&න A6ණe &8ම අAක6ණෙ$ වගAමBwvනා ගyWමB ෙමSg ,ෙම4කද &eනවාන2 .
eව සඒ වෙłම ඒක සව
e◦ .&@ධ ෙවන &සාෙව&◌ි µ ෙවන ෙදeBeාවB එතෙක4g '&ස් Ø .
ෙ2 වෙł අවස9
ාවB ක!& Aවා වෙłම සa සාB\ ම & වෙłම
.එතන අත6මy ෙව&ෙ& නෑ
සa සාB\eකg අ@ c ක6න .පVෙ>@We සාB\ ව!& 9$S ක6&න Sçව& Aවා මතක ඇ&
ද “&wඬ සාB\ක5” ෙe& wv&ව&ෙ&අවස්9ාවB සාමානa◌ි egඅ"g ,ඒ වෙł අවස්9ාවB .
ද&&න ▇▇▇&▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ [1996] CanLII 158 (SCC), (1996), 111 C.C.C. (3d) 403 (S.C.C.),
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 &eන කyනඩා ▇▇ A&µෙ>gෙවළඳ සycB ,ෙ2 නM A&µෙ>g ත .
ඒ 84ෙeSව අAක6ණeg .V කyම6ාවක ෙ6ෙකS} ෙවcා &@නාම◦ෙක4Icකන ආකා6e &ක
ෂ්ඨාAක6ණe A6ණe කෙළ ඒ සාB\e තව ව6දක5 &8මg ඉ Vප& ක6@ cy@ අවස9ාෙ>g ෙ
ෙවන& වාrක ෙwS ! ත සාB\මeතw:5 &8මB ෙන4මy&ව 3ව& ęමාණව& වන £වQඒ අදාළ .
.ෙeSව ත අදාළ ව6ද කළ £ව ෙප&8මg ෙපළ98මB අAක6ණe ෙකෙ& ඇ& ක6න £වQ84
න)& ෙ2 වෙł අවස්9ාවකg අ" මතක &eා ග&න ඕනා ෙදeB තමQ ෙ2 වෙł 84ෙeS එකB
:න& ස◦ස්ක6ණe &8ෙ2 wy&eාව &ෙ£න £ව .
පVෙ>@We සාB\ ස2£&ධෙe& සcක@g 5ව&ඩාෙ> ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Nderubumwe Rutaganda ෙව@ෙව& අ&ත&Dා&ක O@ධාAක6ණe && ▇▇&▇@ cy@ නMෙ>g )The Prosecutor v. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Rutaganda, Georges, ICTR 96-3) 84ෙeS සාB\ ෙe4දා ෙගන &ෙeනවා .
ෙ2 ස2£øෙe& ම ෙ2g .සාB\ ෙ@ ෂ A ධාන පනත ගyන& ▇▇ £c&න ඕනා 1995
CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB ආෙ>@ &8ම ස2£&ධෙe& e2 ෙcස&& ෙwS අදාළ ක6 ගyWමg wy&eාව
ඇ& ෛන&ක ę&පාදන ෙ2 වන g ද&&න ඇ&ෙ&
.පනෙ& ( A ධාන
ද6ණ සාB 14
අ◦ක
1995\
ෙ@ෂ )
ඒ අ@ව CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB ස2£&ධෙe& ෙව@g මg ෙ$න eg පwළ දyBෙවන වග&&
ෙක4gස් ෙ£4ෙw4ම වyදග& ෙවQ .9eාc& Sතcා £c&න .
පනෙ&
&eනවා සාB\ ආඥාපනෙ& ෙwS ෙවන& e2 ! ▇ W&eක පgwy&ව ;මB
.වග 2
ෙමS A ධාන සcසවා ,සඳw& :වද ඇ& ක5ණB ස2£&ධෙe& ෙ2 පනෙ& A ධාන අදාළ
ක6@ cyUe Oąe egක2ක5 &@්චe ,ෙe52ක6ණෙ$gඅ" ද&නවා සාB\ ආඥාපනත .
න2 න)& e2 e&& අව@a .සwාෙවg නy&න2 Oධ අAක6ණeකg අදාළ ෙව&ෙ& නෑ &ecා
ෙ2 පනත egෙ&CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB අදාළ &8මg wy&eාව ෙ2 ඕනාම තyනකg &ෙeනවා ෙ2
අ@ව3 එQ@& .වyදග& .වග 3 ඒ වෙłම පනෙ& .. 3. වග&eන ක5ණ අෙ$ අවධානeg ග&න .
ෙ2 පනෙ&
,ඒ අ@ව &eෙව&ෙ& සාB\ ආඥාපනෙ& ෙwS ෙවන& W&eක A ධාන
.ඕනා
A ධාන සcසව
ා නy& ක5ණB ස2£&ධෙe& A6ණeB ගyWමg ඕනාවන අවස9
ාවක g
අAක6ණeg &e ෛනස& ක £ce Øeා&මක ක6'& වන e2 OB&e ඉ3 &8ෙමS cා අව@a ,
ෙ2ෙB වyදග&කම ෙව&ෙ& .ආඥාවB &8ෙම& ඒ ක5ණ A6ණe ක6@ cyUe wyකCCTV
ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB ෙප4|&eg ම&@නeB සඳwා c£ා ග&න ඕනා :න ෙවcාවකg අදාළ ආඥාව
&Vමg ෙ2 &සා &p5ව6e;g wy&eාව cy ම / ම&@නeB &8ම සඳwා ෙප4|&eg .
.ස◦.අප6ාධ නM ) පy'cIcg සwාe 8ෙ2 OąකමB අAක6ණeg &ෙeනවා124 වගඑෙwම .(.
▇▇&▇ ම& න2 Sත&ෙ& නෑ ම&@නeB සඳwාCCTV mෙ එකB c£ා ග&න ෙප4|&eg අවස්9ාවB &ෙeQ &ecා ෙම4කද .CCTV mෙ එකB &e&ෙ& S@ග!ක ෙදeB &සාෙව& .
ඉ& පස්ෙස වyදග& ෙව&ෙ& පනෙ&
සමකා|න ’
ඒ ෙක4gෙස මාතaකාව
.වන ෙක4gස 1
‘ෙ6ෙකSඩන. CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB &e&ෙ&& සමකා|න ෙ6ෙකSඩනeBපනෙ& අ&9 .
ඒ &සා .& පණෙ$ ෙ6ෙකSඩනe &eන ෙදQ& අදwස් ෙව&ෙ& ෙම4කBද &ecා දBවcා නෑ
න)& සමකාc ෙwS දa@aවa ◌ª නව ඒ &e&ෙ& e2 ඉ Vප& ක5ණB ස2£&ධෙe&
සමකා|නව &µවන ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB ආව6ණe ක6&න S{ව& ෙ2 &සා .CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB
:න& ආව6ණe ක6තwy& .න)& ඒක පywy !ම නෑ .
පනෙ& “සa වාrක සාB\” වග&&e &e&ෙ& අ&;& ක5X අත6 e2 &@AeB "s£ඳ 4
කආෙ>@a◌* 8ෙ2 නM කgO&තB ස2£&ධෙe@Qවන ෙක4gස අදාළ ක6&න 1 ඒ wy6 පනෙ& .
දy& .£ෑCCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB අෙ>@ ක6&න 5&සw ක6නවාන2ඒක සa වාrක සාB\ ,
. &8ෙ2 නM කgO&තB ෙව&න ඕනාආෙ>@aCCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB සa වාrක සාB\eB eg
ආෙ>@a ක6&න S{ව& ද ෙ2 තමQ ?අ" 5&ත6 ෙw4e&න ඕනා ę@්නe 60 සාB\ ආඥාපනෙ& .
ඊළюg ම& ඉw!& .වග&&e &eනවා ෙම4න ෙම4න egද වාrක සාB\ ෙද&න S{ව& &ecා
දBවcා &ෙeනR ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ කyනඩා නM A&µෙ>g &&ම වාrක සාB\e&& තw:5 &8මB අදාළ ක6 ෙන4ෙගන CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB ආෙ>@a ක6& &ෙeනවා තe; වy6 ක5ව; &8මg .ෙ2 ක5ණ ගyන අAක6ණe && ▇&▇ OąQ ම& ▇&▇ egන2 .
5දාw6ණeකg Sත&න ෙකෙනBෙł ෙගද6කg ෙකෙනB ඇąç ෙවනවා සw "g ෙවනවා CCTV
mෙ එකක &ෙeනවාපස්ෙස ෙකෙනB පy'c! ක6නවා ෙප4|&eg '&ෙwB මg අතව6eB .
ඒ& ෙගg එනවා සw eනවා .ඒ '&wාව ම& අvන&ෙන නෑ ,ක6&න මෙł කාමෙ&g ඇąI :නා
CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනe;& &ෙeනවා &ecාඅතව6 ක6නවා ෙ6ෙකS} ෙවනවාන2 ආෙ>@ &8ෙ2 .
ඒ& එෙwම නy .අ:cB ෙව&ෙ& නෑąව eනවා එනවා ත6Bන2 &ෙe&ෙ& එතෙක4g
පywy !වම ę@්නeBන)& අදාළ තyනy&තාෙł wvනාගyWම මත අ&අඩ◦iවg ගyWමB &µ e .
wy£yQ ෙ2ෙක ෙදපy&තම &ෙeන £ව& මතක &eා
.ග&න ඕනා අ"
.S@ග!ක &දwස wමා6Q .ඕ& වyෙ} .wy&Q
e2 e&& අ" CCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB .e&න ąළg දා ග&තා &e)ෙක4 “සa වාrක සාB\eB’
.B &ෙeනවා සcකcා £c&න 4 ▇▇&&▇▇& ▇▇& ෙක4&ෙ@& 4 ඉ& පස්ෙස
මeB wා ත ක6'& ක &ක ෙwS eා&Ø&පාදනe ඉෙcBෙ 4ත ඒ ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS ę (අ)
- සාදන cද £වCCTV ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB &e&ෙ& සවe◦ eවම &µ වන ෙදeB මy w& ම@ෂa .
ඒකQ wvනා ගyWෙ2 .න)& අදාළ mෙ එක wvනා ග&ෙ& ඉ&& '&ෙwB තමQ .8මB නy&ව
සාB\eB egCCTV mෙ එකB ග&න S{ව& ෙව&ෙ&&ක ඒ වෙłම ෙමe ඉෙcBෙ 4 . ▇▇&& සාද@ cy£ක ▇▇&▇ .▇▇&& සාද@ cy@ව;& ෙවනවා ◌,ව;& ෙවනවා .
(ආ)4 වග .3 වන 5ප ▇▇&&▇▇ eg&ව ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS ęත &පාදනe ඉ&gee&ෙග&
çwණe ක6ගත ▇▇& ආකා6e&& Øeා ක68මද&@නe &8ම ෙwS ę ,eා ක68මSන&Ø ,
- &පාදනe &8ම කළ wy& £වත ęCCTV කyම6ාව&& ෙකෙ6න ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB තy&ප&
ෙව&ෙ& wා} 4ස්B එකක wVe )I ක6 ග&'& lcා ඉ&& ෙ2 9VAනI .r$ එකක wV ,
පpව ඒ .ඒ වෙłම තමQ &ෙකS} ෙව@ £c&න& S{ව& .ත62 ෙක4" wදා ග&න S{ව&අව@a
wණe ක6 ගත ▇▇& ෙවනවාද නy@ද e&න ee&ෙග& çඒක ඉ&g .&ෙකS} එක £c&න& S{ව& &ද◌් Aමe ක5ණකB .4 .3 5ප ▇▇&&▇ &e&ෙ& අ&;& ක5X අත6 ඉ&ge&ෙග& çwණe
ක6ගත ▇▇& ආකා6e&& Øeාක68ම&පාදනe
ත ද&@නe &8ම ෙwS ęę
,eාක68මSන&Ø ,
වB "s£ඳ wණe ක6 ගත wy& න)& e2 &@්rත දaා&8ම කළ ෙන4wyBකා : ෙwS එෙwම ç ද◌y@මB ෙන4මy& e2 තyනy&ත;g අවෙ£Sධ ක6 ගත ෙන4wyBකා 3 ෙwS එS ස්වwාවe අ@ව එS )I ආකa&ෙe&ම එe අවෙ£Sධ ක6 ගyWමg සw සාB\ ව@ෙe& "sගyWමg පwp
ෙන4ව&නා 3 අවස්9ාවක ඒ ෙ6ෙකSඩනෙ$ ෙwS ęත &පාදනෙ$ අවෙ£Sධ ක6ගත wy& 3 ද
ඉ&gee&ෙග& çwණe කළ wy& 3 ද e2 "gප& &8මBඅ@ව&තනeB ෙwS ,
ෙ2 &e&ෙ& )I . කළ wy& £ව පා&ත6ක6ණeB අAක6ණeg සාB\ eg ආෙ>@a
."gපෙත& ෙක4" ග&න S{ව& ෙවcාවB ගyන £වQ ෙ$&ෙ&
&පාදනe සකස් &8ෙ2g wා තා ක6න cද ත අවස9
ාෙවSrත පV ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS ę
(ඇ)
e ෙwS 5පe&ę මe ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS ęත &පාදනe සකස් &8මg වyදග& &eç අවස9ාවcg
&& ෙcස Øeාක6'& &@X £ව ෙwS එෙස ෙන4&@ෙ න2 එe && ෙcස Øeා ෙන4කෙළ ෙwS Øeා 6Sත 3ෙ> e2 ක5ණB ස2£&ධෙe&ද ඒ ක5ණ එම ෙ6ෙකSඩනෙ$ ෙwS
ęත &පාදනෙ$ ෙwS &6වදaතාවe ෙකෙ& £c ෙන4පෑ £ව ෙමතන &e&න &ෙeන ෙ@ තමQ -
CCTV mෙ එක ගyන ගyg{වB එ&ෙ& නෑ ඒක සවe◦ eව &µ වන &සා .
&පාදනe &8ෙ2g ෙwS &8ෙම& පp ඒ ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS ත ඒ ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS ę (ඈ)
&පාදනe කව6 ෙwS ආකා6e&& ෙවනස් &8මB ෙwS ඊg අ&& e2 ෙදeB ෙන4කත ę6න cද
£ව ෙwS ඒ ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS ęත &පාදනe &8ෙ2g ෙwS &8ෙම& පpව &eç වyදග& අවස්9ාවcg එe ආ6Bෂක wා6ෙ$ &@ £ව සw සw ඒ ආ6Bෂක wා6ෙ$ එe &@ණ කාce ąළg ඒ
ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS ęත &පාදනe ෙවනස් &Vම ෙwS ඊg අ&& ෙදeB &8ෙ2 wy&eාව වළBවා|ම
සඳwා ęමාණව& ę&වා6Bෂ Øeාමා6ග ග&නා cද £ව ෙ2 තමQ ම& ද&න ෙ2 වග&&ෙ$ -
දy& ▇▇& ෙන4ෙeB ෙස4ෆ
ෙවeා& &ෙeනවා 84ෙeS
.&ෙeන වyදග&ම ෙක4&ෙ@&e
අෙ$ 5&ත6eB ෙව&ෙ& .84ෙeS එක 4 5දාw6ණeකg £c&න චyනI .ස◦ස්ක6ණe කළ wy&
එ . සw ස◦ස්ක6ණe කළ 84ෙeSවB £වQෙ&ඒක අසතa g අAක6ණeg ෙc4; වගAමB
&ෙeනවා ෙ2 අවස9ාෙ>gතාවe £c&න දyනgන2 c◦කාෙ> ෙ2 වෙł 84ෙeS එකක &6වදa .
ඒ& අද ෙවනක2 එවy& .ceඒ ෙම463ව @්ව දaා .ම& ▇▇&▇& එක ආeතනeQ &ෙe&ෙ&
න)& ෙ£4ෙw4ම ඉBමcන&ම .@්න ගත ෙවc& නෑ මෙł දyWෙ2 wy eg84ෙeSවB ęCCTV
mෙ &&ෙe& අSෙeSගeg cB ක6න £ව න2 මg @වාසQආ6Bෂකeා && ę&වා6Bෂ .
ෙමතන ෙ@ ෂෙe&ම .Qeාමා&ගeB ග&තද &ecා ෙප&න&න& අව@aØCCTV mෙ එෙBg අනනa 3 water mark එකB වෙłම ෙවcාව සw නe පා r &8මg සycyස්8ම ඉතාම& වyදග&
ę&වා6Bෂ Øeාමා&ගeB eg සycAෙ2gඒ වෙłම 84ෙeS එක ෙ6ෙකS} ෙවන ක2"Og6e .
ෙwS ෙමමV rපe තවෙකෙන;g පා r ක6&න S{ව& ▇ &eන එක ගyන& ▇▇▇&!ම& ෙව&න
ෙe& ෙගද6ක &ෙeනසාමානa .ෙවනවාCCTV ප@ධ&eB සw &&e2 සමාගමක &ෙeන CCTV
ප@ධ&eB ග&තම ෙ2 ෙවනස ę@්නගත ක6&න S{ව&ඒ &e&ෙ& එතන ආ6Bෂකෙł wා6e .
.)2 ක5ණB ෙවනවාę
ෙ2 &eS ෙක4&ෙ@& ඒ ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ඉ Vප& ක6න &µ8ම ගyන e2 ,ස2ę&ණ ෙවනවා න2 4
තyනy&ත; && සාB\ දy8මB ක6 ඇ&ෙ& ෙwS ෙන4මy&ෙ& :ව& ඒ ෙ6ෙකSඩනe ෙwS &පාදනe සත ę◌ාB\ eg ආෙ>@a කළ OąQ .
ඒ වෙłම තමQ පනෙ& 4(4) ▇▇&&▇ අ@ව&පාදනeB ත& ත e2 ෙ6ෙකSඩනeB ෙwS ę ,
ම ෙwS 5ප ම &Sපe&& ▇▇▇ ▇ e&ę ෙwS 5ප මe&& ෙwS e&ęe&& ෙwS 5ප e&ę
e2 5rත 5පක6ණeක ආධා6e ෙwS '&ස් මyද ,ඒකා£@ධ &8ම&&▇* w& 8මB ඇ&ව ෙwS නy&
ෙwS සාදන c@ෙ@ :වදමe&& සාද@ cy@වB eg ක &ක ෙwS eා&Øඑe ඉෙcBෙ 4 ,
ෙ2 ąs& ."sග&න ඕනාCCTV mෙ එකB අAක6ණeg නMවකg සාB\eB eg ෙł&න S{ව& £ව ෙ$නවා .
ඉw&& දBවS ක5X තමQ පනෙ& 1995CCTV mෙ ගyන අ"g අAක6ණeකg wා තා &8මg
ෙe4දා ග&න S{ව& ▇& ද&න වyදග&ම ක5X .
ෙ2 ක9ා ක6S
කyම6ා mෙ අ"g wා තා ක6&න ෙව&ෙ& ක!& Aව වෙł
CCTV
ඒ වෙłම තමQ ෙ2 mෙ එකB අ"g S{ව& වාrක ෙwS
! ත සාB\eB තw:5 &8මg ෙe4දා ග&න .
. ෙ@ෂ
ෙe&ම තe; wvනා ගyWමg
wvනා ගyWෙ2 සාB\eB eg 84ෙeS mෙ එකB ෙe4දා ග&න S{ව& Øeාප පා e g
කs&
ක5X වන
සාමානa
.&පාදන අ@ව ෙක ෙe& සාක 8ා ක6cා ඇ&පනෙ& ę
1995
.ඒ ගyන 9eාcා Sතcා £c&න .ෙනS ස් ගyන එතන ම& ක9ා ක6cා නෑ
වa සw දa@a සාB\ ඉ Vප& &Vෙ2g වyදග&ම ෙ@ තමQ 9VAනI "gපත ඉ ▇▇& &8ම .CCTV
කyම6ා mෙ එකB ස2£&ධෙe& £yc@g9VAනI "gපත ව&ෙ& ක2"Og& wා} 4ස්B එක ,
.නy&න2 ෙමමV r$ එක
Identifying witnesses. The evidence of a witness who knows a Defendant is admissible to identify him as the person shown on a video or photograph. For example a witness was allowed to identify a member of his TA unit shown as a participant in an incident of disorder shown on tape. (Kajala ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ (1982) 75 Cr. App.R).
ෙ2 ස2£&ධෙe& &ෙeන wV cසසන නM A&µවB ෙw4eා ග&න cy@නා ඒ තමQ .▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇.
Chief Constable of Chesihre, (1987) 1 All E.R. 225 නM A&µව .
“It is the case of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Chief Constable of Cheshire (1987) All ER 225. It was a simple shoplifting case. The Defendant, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ was observed by a security officer to take and place inside his jacket a packet of batteries. The observation took place with the assistance of a CCTV system. A recording was made which was later viewed by police officers and was also shown later to the Defendants Solicitor.
The tape was retained by the store, who later accidentally erased it. Police officers and security staff gave evidence of what they had seen on the tape. The defence argued that the witnesses should not be allowed to give evidence of what they had observed from the tape without the production of the tape itself. The court held that there was no effective distinction between a direct view of the actions of an alleged offender by a witness and a view via a screen or a recording of what the camera saw. Evidence was not inadmissible on the hearsay principle.”
9£ && ෙමවy& 84ෙeS mෙ එකB නy&න2, ෙවන& 84ෙeS එකB සාB\ eg ඉ Vප& &8මg £cාෙප4ෙ64&ąෙවනවා න2, පwත ක5X ගyන& කB Sත&න.
lcා e "s£ඳ ෙත46ą5 - 9£g, 84ෙeS එක කෙළ ක:ද? ෙක4ෙw ද &µ කෙළ වy& ක5X "s£ඳ දyන ෙගන ඉ&න ෙවනවා.
ෙe4දාග& තාBෂණe - අදාළ 84ෙeS එක ෙ6ෙකS} &8මg ෙe4දා ග& තාBෂණ මෙ>දe දyන ග&න
&&ම ෙවcාවක මාස්g& ෙ6ෙකS} එක ස◦ස්ක6ණe ක6&න න2 එපා. න)& ෙක4" එකB අ6 ග&තාg කමB නෑ. ඒ වෙłම මාස්g& ෙ6ෙකS} එක ආ6Bෂා ෙව&න වyඩ ක6&න.
wා6කා6&ව දාමe (Chain of custody) - 84ෙeSව ෙ6ෙකS} ක6න අවස9් ඉ Vප& ක6න ෙතB එe පyවąන ආකා6e සනා9 &8මg wy&eාව වyදග&
ාෙ> ඉඳ& අAක6ණeg
84ෙeSව ෙ6ෙකS}ෙවන අවස්9ාව S6ාම එe ෙw4g& Øeා&මක 8මg සycyස8ම වyදග&. අත6 මග
නyවA2 &@ෙන4& 5@ධ පා&@වeg ę@නගත &8මg අවස්9ාවB cyෙ£නවා.
e සළ;ණ සw නe - S{ව& wyම ෙවcාෙවම 84ෙeS mෙ එෙBg ෙවSg& මා&B එකB,
ෙවcාවQ නeQ සඳw&8මg සyළyස්8ම ඉතාම& වyදග&
ත&&වe - ෙ6ෙකS}ෙවන 84ෙeSව ඉතාම& ෙw4ඳ ත&&වෙe& පව&න £වg සw&ක ෙව&න. ඒ වෙłම වyදග& &e{ම ක5X ෙ6ෙකS} ෙව&න සycyස්8ම&.
**********************
"It is my view that a Commission could be issued to the EQD in instances where the Document has been listed or has been marked in evidence or when the Court deems a Commission proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute which is entirely within the discretion of Court The main objective of filing a List of Witnesses
and Documents in accordance with Section 121(2) of the Civil Procedure Code - is to prevent an element of surprise and thereby causing prejudice to the other side by non-compliance of the aforesaid Section."
per Justice Imam in Malagodagamage Karunawathie ▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ alias ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (S.C.H.C.C.A.L.A. No: 19/2007 decided on 2011.11.24)
Judgment
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
Vidanelage ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Vidanelage ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇
C.A.No.1125/98 (F)
D.C.MT.LAVINIA CASE NO.231/SPL/97
Before : K.T.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇
Counsel : ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ P.C. with ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ for the Defendant-Appellant
▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ P.C. with ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ for the Plaintiff-Respondent
Argued on : 2013.08.27
Written Submissions on : 30th September 2011 by the Defendant- Appellant
30th September 2011 by the Plaintiff-Respondent
Decided on : 2014.02.05
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇.
This is an appeal seeking to set aside the judgment dated 30.12.1998 of the learned District Judge of Mt. Lavinia. In the petition of appeal the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) also sought to have the action filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) dismissed. The action of the respondent is to have the gift given to the appellant by executing the deed bearing No.304 dated 18.01.1990 attested by K.D.C.V.Karunaratne, Notary Public, revoked. This deed was marked PI in evidence. Parties to the action are the sister (appellant) and the brother (respondent) of the same family. The property that was gifted by the said deed is described as lot 17C(1) in Plan No.749 dated 15.07.1975 (vide page 143 of the appeal brief). The father of the two parties, who was the earlier owner of the premises in suit, had gifted this property to the respondent reserving to himself and to his wife a life interest. That is how the respondent became entitled to the property in question. Thereafter respondent gifted it to the appellant by the deed marked PI subject to his life interest in the property.
The respondent filed this action to have the said gift revoked on the basis of gross ingratitude. The said contention of the respondent is clearly evident by paragraph 14 in the plaint (vide
page 23 of the appeal brief) and also by the issue No. 11 raised at the trial on his behalf. (vide page 27 of the appeal brief) Even though the cause of action is on the basis of gross ingratitude, the respondent in the plaint as well as in the issues has also described the circumstances alleged to have led to cause gross ingratitude committed by the appellant. The appellant in her answer as well as in the issues raised at the commencement of the trial has taken up the position that the respondent is not entitled in law to revoke the gift on the grounds as described by the respondent.
Learned District Judge, when he decided the case in favour of the respondent having considered the evidence adduced, has set out the following acts as the acts that amounted to gross ingratitude committed by the appellant.
1. Allowing the son of the appellant to lock up the father in a room of the house in question.
2. Not allowing the respondent, who had a life interest to occupy a room in the up-stairs of the house.
3. Assaulting the respondent when he went to occupy a room in the house and threatening him to leave the house.
4. Failing to properly understand the father without being mindful of his age.
5. Not acting in a manner that pleased his father.
6. Not making any attempt to find out as to what actions would have pleased the father.
(vide page 127 of the appeal brief)
Having reasoned out the manner in which the alleged gross ingratitude was committed, learned District Judge has held that those matters are sufficient enough to constitute gross ingratitude committed by the donee and then decided the case as prayed for in the plaint. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned District Judge, appellant filed this appeal seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and also to have the plaint dismissed. In the circumstances, it is first necessary to ascertain whether the learned District Judge is correct in determining that those acts of the appellant do constitute "gross ingratitude".
As referred to above, this is an action filed to revoke a deed of gift. A "gift" or as it is sometimes called a "donation" is technically, in its narrower sense, a giving or promising of a thing without compulsion or legal obligation or stipulation for anything in return, freely, out of sheer liberality or beneficicense, ( Voet, Commentarius ad Pandectas, 39.5.1.) ▇▇▇▇ says (xxxix 5.5) to donate is nothing else than to sacrifice, and to abandon. (donare vero nihil aliud est, ▇▇▇▇ jactare & perdere)
Donation made in that context is generally absolute and irrevocable. However, there exist exceptions to this rule; and a gift is revocable:
⮚ If the donee failed to give effect to a direction as to its application;
⮚ On the ground of donee's ingratitude; or
⮚ If at the time of the gift the donor was childless, but afterwards became the father of a legitimate child by birth or legitimation.
The aforesaid criteria of revoking a gift had been described at length by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, J, in the case of ▇▇▇▇ Podi ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Menike v. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, [(1992) 2 SLR at page 180.]
On the face of the deed of gift subjected to in this case, it does not contain any condition other than the reservation of the life interest in favour of the respondent. Therefore, it is a gift given out of pure liberality and it is an act of pure disinterested benevolence towards the appellant. However, it is settled law that even such a gift is revocable for gross ingratitude committed by the donee towards the donor.
As stated hereinbefore, the reason for the respondent to have the gift subjected to this action, revoked is gross ingratitude committed by the appellant. Therefore, I will now turn to consider whether or not the circumstances alleged to have prevailed in this particular instance constitute gross ingratitude.
I will now consider the manner in which the Courts have looked at when revoking gifts given upon pure benevolence on the basis of gross ingratitude.
In SIVARASIPILLAI Vs ANTHONYPILLAI [40 N L R 47]
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Held thus:
"If one bases oneself on the authority of Voet one finds that there are five instances of ingratitude expressly mentioned by him as affording justification for the revocation of gifts, namely, (1) the laying of impious hands of the donee on the donor; (2) the donee outrageously defaming the donor; (3) the donee causing the donor enormous loss; (4) the donee plotting against the donor's life; (5) the donee failing to fulfil the conditions annexed to the gift. ▇▇▇▇, however, goes on to add that "it does not seem to admit of doubt that for other similar and ▇▇▇▇▇▇."
In the case of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ [63 N L R 236] ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇.▇. held as
follows:
This is an action by the plaintiff, who is the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ mother of the defendant her adopted son, to have a deed of gift No. 10544 dated 11 th May 1953 and attested by Notary ▇. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ set aside on the ground of ingratitude. She alleged three acts of ingratitude, namely;
(1) an assault on her with a broom-stick,
(2) a threat to cause bodily harm and injury to her, and
(3) causing mischief and damage to the house occupied by her.
The learned District Judge has held that the plaintiff has exaggerated those incidents but he does not hold that they are entirely unfounded. He has however accepted the plaintiffs
evidence in regard to the incident of the threat to cause bodily injury to her as her evidence is supported by the evidence of an independent witness. But he holds that it does not constitute an act of ingratitude.
We are unable to agree. On that occasion the defendant chased after the plaintiff threatening to kill her and she had to seek refuge in the house of the witness ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ who is a disinterested person. She says: " When I was living in the Tuduwe road house I remember the plaintiff coming running into my house. I asked her why she came running, and she said that her son was coming to kill her. " The fact that the defendant more than once endeavoured to dissuade this witness from giving evidence for the plaintiff is a circumstance which is in favour of the plaintiff and goes to reinforce the evidence of the witness. This incident by itself is sufficient to support the allegation of ingratitude on the part of the defendant, and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to the relief she seeks.
In ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and another Vs. THILLAIYAMPALAM [59 N L R 265]
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇.▇. held thus:
“Revocation of a deed of gift may be granted on the commission of a single act of ingratitude. There is no hard and fast rule as to what conduct on the part of a donee may be regarded as ingratitude for which a donor may ask for revocation of his gift. " [emphasis added]
In the case of CALENDAR ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ [2001 (2) S L R 355 [C.A. 283/89(F) D.C. MT
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 345/SPL] ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. had the following observations to make in this regard.
"We may deal with this third issue at this stage. The examination of the third issue would necessitate an answer to legal issue No.7 too which dealt with the adequacy of the act of violence mentioned amounting to an act of gross ingratitude.
In ▇▇▇▇ Podi ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that a donor was entitled to revoke a donation on account of ingratitude
(i) if the donee lays ▇▇▇▇▇ impias (impious hands) on the donor and/ or.
(ii) if he does him an atrocious injury and/ or.
(iii) if he Willfully causes him great loss of property and/or.
(iv) if he makes an attempt on his life and/ or.
(v) if he does not fulfill the conditions attached to the gift and/ or.
(vi) other equally grave causes.
It was also held that ingratitude was a form of mind which had to be inferred from the donee's conduct and such an attitude of mind will be indicated either by a single act or a series of acts. Chief Justice ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ stated in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ as follows:" There is nothing in the books which lays down the rule that a revocation may not be granted on the commission of a single act of ingratitude. "
In the background of the Defendant-Respondent leaving for Dubai much against the wish of the Plaintiff-Appellant, her considering another marriage when her first marriage was still subsisting, her removing articles belonging to the Plaintiff Appellant (this fact being corroborated by witness ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇) when the Plaintiff-Appellant was not at home, her failure to refer to plausible grounds for divorce in her plaint and divorce itself being granted on the evidence of the Plaintiff-Appellant on the ground of malicious desertion by the
Defendant-Respondent, the assault on the Plaintiff-Appellant after the divorce action had already been filed by the Defendant-Respondent - there is no doubt that the Defendant- Respondent laid impious hands on the Plaintiff and wilfully caused the Plaintiff Appellant great loss of property both of which are acts of gross ingratitude. The act of hitting a man 54 years' old and 21 years older than herself with a sugar filled bottle and saucepan could even be considered as an attempt on the life of the Plaintiff-Appellant though sufficient evidence in this regard was not furnished. The Judge therefore had ample grounds to hold that an act of ingratitude had been committed by the DefendantRespondent. With the necessary intention to cause him harm established coupled with the decree of divorce based on malicious desertion granted in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant D. C. Mt. Lavinia case No. 2007/ D issue No.3 should have been answered in the affirmative. [▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1925WLD 178 at 182). [emphasis added].
Looking at all those decisions and the law prevailing in this country, particularly the Roman- Dutch law principles, it is my opinion that a decision as to whether there exist sufficient material to establish gross ingratitude basically depends, on the state of mind of the donee or in other words by ascertaining whether the donee in fact, intended causing gross ingratitude.Thus, such an issue can only be decided by applying what is commonly known as the "subjective test".
The next question then arises is to find out the standard of proof that is required in establishing gross ingratitude in a case filed to have a gift revoked on that basis. The answer to this question could be found by looking at the decision in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. [S.C.Appeal No.68/2010 W.P/HCCA/Col 98/2006(f) ▇.▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 7402/Spl s.c. minutes dated 26.07.2011]. In that decision, it was held by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ J as follows:
"A deed of gift is absolute and irrevocable. That is the rule. However, the law has recognized certain exceptions to the rule of irrevocability. A party applying to Court to invoke the exceptions in his favour has to satisfy court, by cogent evidence, that the court would be justified in invoking the exceptions in favour of the party applying for the same. In this case even if the appellant's evidence in the District Court is considered alone (without any reference to the contents of the documents P4A and P4B) her evidence falls short of the standard of proof required to invoke any recognized exception to defeat the rule of irrevocability. A mere ipse dixit like "he threatened to kill me" is not sufficient to discharge that burden". [emphasis added]
Having discussed the law on establishing gross ingratitude committed by the donee and the standard of proof required in such a situation, it is then necessary to consider whether or not, the respondent in this case was successful in establishing with cogent evidence that the appellant, in fact had the intention of acting in a manner that constitute gross ingratitude towards the donor.
The respondent filed this action setting out, the instances where the appellant has alleged to have committed ingratitude not only towards himself but also towards the father of the both. Respondent had been away from the country for a long period of time and married to a foreign national. Before the parties were married they all were living together with their parents basically on the earnings of the father who ran a studio by the side of Galle Road in Wellawatta. It is not incorrect to state that they were a happy family living with harmony
then. Both parties to the action married afterwards and the appellant was living where they were living with the parents and the respondent had decided to settle outside the country having married to a foreign national.
As their parents grew older, the appellant virtually took over the control of the properties belonging to their family that included the premises in suit as well. Indeed, there is evidence to show that the appellant had received rent amounting to Rs.40,000 / - by renting out the property in suit, having given only Rs.5,000 / - to the father.
Looking at the behavioral pattern of the parties, it is evident that the respondent was very much keen to see that the father is well looked after by her sister, particularly during the old age of the father. No doubt that the father too was well aware of such thinking of the respondent. It may have been the reason for him to write letters one after the other to the son even for a slightest issue. Those had been the circumstances under which the respondent had gifted the property in suit to the sister. The appellant cannot be heard to say that she was not aware of such a scenario. Therefore, it is not incorrect to state that the appellant was under the impression that she was causing ingratitude towards the brother by doing something that caused agony even to their father. Accordingly, it is appropriate even to look at those incidents that have taken place to ascertain whether the appellant intended causing gross ingratitude towards the respondent brother, she being the donee.
The respondent in his evidence has stated that the property was gifted to the sister, anticipating that she would look after the father as he was living in Germany though such a condition is not found in the deed itself. Said thinking of the respondent is seen by the following evidence:
w, : t* 9wªw,u ,*saªa euª;¸ u,eaª e*ɔlç ?
ş : ** Mď*a*esª @aªa a*wɔ ;ɔ;ª;ɔu n,ɔ naªa *d w,rtuaª l*lª aE. e*euª @▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇* ú;6s*. tª a*wɔ ;ɔ;ª;ɔu n,ɔ naªa ,*s,ɔ şaªeaª.
w, : ;ɔ;ª;ɔu n,ɔ naªa a*wɔ ,*s,ɔ şaªaɔ ?
ş : *d ;ɔ;ª;ɔd w,;*lɔ6 l6aªa neß a*wɔ. tª euª;¸u şu aon* *n*aª tª w*s,ª, l6 ▇▇▇▇* a*wɔ. aonSd l6a lD;{;ɔuslª uaesaª¸ ;ɔ;ª;ɔd w,la a*wɔ ** ;En* l<ɔ. ;ɔ;ª;ɔd w<laªa eua ewɔe6ɔaªşu şu.
(Vide proceedings at page 31 in the appeal brief).
In answer to cross-examination too, the respondent has dearly stated that it was gifted because the love and affection he had towards the father.
(Vide proceedings at page 50 in the appeal brief)
The father has informed the respondent by his letter marked P2 of an incident where the appellant has scolded the father over a condition of a door frame. It had resulted the respondent coming down to Sri Lanka in order to console the father. The evidence in this connection reads thus:
(Vide proceedings at page 32 in the appeal brief)
In another occasion the respondent had to come down to Sri Lanka due to a telephone call received by him from the daughter of the appellant informing him that the father had taken poison. He stated that he came down to Sri Lanka on that occasion because he could not bear up the shock he had, upon hearing the incident of taking poison by the father. The evidence to that effect is as follows:
The appellant too has testified to this incident and her evidence in this regard is as follows:
The respondent also has said that he became very sad after having received the letters marked in evidence which were written by the father. The following is the evidence of the respondent to that effect in answer to Court.
There had been another incident where a padlock had been placed preventing the respondent entering into the upstairs of the house. The evidence in this regard is as follows:
Moreover, the respondent has stated that the appellant herself scolded him jointly with her children and it had led for him to leave the house. This is evident by the following questions and the answers.
w, : ;*aªd *ɔaw*l nɔOɔulª w*çªO u,aɔç ?
The father has also stated that the son-in-law of the appellant demanded Rs.40,000/- from him alleging that he damaged the car belong to the son-in-law. The father then had to pay Rs.40,000/- to the son-in-law. The evidence to that effect reads thus:
The appellant too had admitted that her son-in-law took Rs.40,000 /- from the father as damages in view of the damage caused to the vehicle though no evidence is found as to the person who damaged the vehicle other than what the son-in-law has told her. The evidence in this regard is as follows:
The appellant could have easily prevented such payment being made without having a blind eye to the issue, if she genuinely did not intend causing ingratitude to her brother.
Moreover, there is evidence to show that even the son-in-law of the appellant has assaulted the respondent. The respondent had made a complaint to the police of this incident and the said complaint is marked as P19. The following is the evidence in that connection.
The father of the two parties also had confirmed having taken place such an incident and accordingly he has stated thus:
The appellant could have avoided such an incident or at least should have taken some step to prevent it, if she did not allow the son-in-law to occupy the house, to which the family members of her daughter had no right whatsoever. Those incidents clearly show that the appellant was acting with an ulterior motive to cause ingratitude towards his own brother.
Upon considering all the circumstances referred to above, it is clear that the respondent had undergone serious mental agony probably due to the implied acts of the appellant, even though some of those may not show any direct involvement by her. However, the fact remain
that she had blindly allowed to have those incidents taken place continuously. Those are the circumstances which show the kind of intention, the appellant had, she being the donee.
Therefore, by looking at the totality of the evidence, it would indicate the attitude and the mind set of the appellant had, towards the respondent, he being his own brother. Such an attitude, to my mind shall constitute "gross ingratitude" particularly in the context upon which this action was instituted. Such a decision, I believe is correct when considering the family background referred to hereinbefore of the parties as well. In the circumstances, it is clear that the appellant has clearly intended causing gross ingratitude to the done who is the plaintiff-respondent in this case.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that there exists ample of evidence to constitute gross ingratitude committed by the appellant she being the donee. Hence, it is my opinion that the learned District Judge is correct when he decided to allow revoking of the gift given to the appellant on the ground of gross ingratitude. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with his findings.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL