The High Court judge of Negombo has acquitted the accused in the torture case of Lalith Rajapakse stating that the brain injury that the torture victim claimed due to assaults inside the Kandana Police Station was due to the victim catching encephalitis whilst at the station rather than being due to injuries caused by torture. This finding of the judge is contrary to the evidence of three medical doctors including expert medical officers who gave firm evidence that the injuries were due to being struck with a blunt instrument.
The court also ignored the injuries caused to the feet of the torture victim which the medical evidence clearly stated could only have been caused by assault with a blunt instrument.
Earlier on April 2, 2008, the same High Court judge, Mrs. J.M.T.M.P.U. Tennakoon, acquitted the police officers accused of the torture of Gerard Perera. The judgement came under serious criticism from local and international human rights groups. In that case the same judge decided that although there was clear evidence that the accused police officers arrested and took Gerard Perera to the Wattala Police Station and also that there was evidence that the torture took place inside the police station, the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt because there were no eye witnesses who had seen how the torture victim was assaulted. Gerards widow has filed appeal in that case. For details please see: http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2008statements/1452/.
In Lalith Rajapakses case, Sub Inspector of Police, Prasanka Peris, was accused of torturing Lalith on April 18, 2002 inside the Kandana Police Station. The charge was filed under the CAT Act, Act No. 22 of 1994. Lalith Rajapakse was taken from the Kandana Police Station to the Ragama hospital where he remained unconscious for 15 days. He was treated most of the time at the General Hospital in Colombo. He recovered after treatment.
The complaint was lodged about his torture and a Special Inquiry Unit (SIU) of the Criminal Investigation Division inquired into the matter and filed a report to the Attorney General who was satisfied that an offense under the CAT Act had been committed. The case took more than six years and a state counsel prosecuted. At the end of the trial the state counsel made a lengthy submission stating that the case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and analysed all the evidence before the court. On behalf of the aggrieved party a counsel made written submissions which went into 92 pages which examined at great length every aspect of this case.
The judge ignored all the submissions that had been made by the state counsel and the aggrieved party and based her judgment entirely on the submission of the lawyer for the defense. The judge failed to state why the submissions made by the prosecution and the aggrieved party were rejected.
On the basis of overwhelming evidence and the clear position of the law this judgement is erroneous and the torture victim will appeal against the judgement.
In a landmark judgement given by the Supreme Court yesterday against former president Chandrika Kumaratunga Bandaranaike and some others, the court held that holders of power in the executive, legislature and judiciary hold such power in trust. To betray that trust is to betray their constitutional duties. The Asian Human Rights Commission is of the view that the judicial responsibility to hold public trust also needs to be scrutinised and the higher judiciary, such as the Supreme Court, needs to look into the actions of the lower courts from the point of view of public trust.
