The prosecution should have been more cautious when framing charges against state officials in a situation where there is no sufficient evidence, the Trial-at-Bar observes.
The Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar bench yesterday unanimously decided to acquit former IGP Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando from all charges levelled against them in connection with the Easter Sunday attack cases.
The Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar made this order pursuant to a request made by defence to acquit them from the charges, on the basis that the prosecution evidence has failed to establish the commission of the offences against accused in the indictments.
Accordingly, Colombo Trial-at-Bar bench comprising High Court Judges Namal Balalle (President), Adithya Patabendige and Mohamed Ishadeen ordered the acquittal of the two former top officials from two separate cases, without calling for defence evidence.
The Attorney General filed indictments consisting of 855 charges against former IGP Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando for their failure and illegal omission to prevent the terrorist attacks between April 7, 2019 and April 21, 2019.High Court Trial-at-Bar held that the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support the fact that the accused committed the murder by illegal omission in terms of section 100(3) of the Penal Code read with section 294.
The Court further held that the prosecution had only called six selected witnesses out of 1216 long list in believing that the evidence of uncalled witnesses would adversely affect the prosecution case.
The court further held that former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando has disseminated the relevant information about possible terrorist attack to the IGP soon after he received it.
The court further held that former IGP Pujith Jayasundara had taken measures to disseminate the intelligence report among four DIGs including Senior DIG Western Province and DIG Special Task Force and this fact had been confirmed by the evidence given by Senior DIG Deshabandu Tennakoon.
The court further observed that according to the prosecution witnesses the information received from State Intelligence Service regarding possible terrorist attack on Easter Sunday attack was not a specific information.
In a separate judgment, High Court Judge Adithya Patabendige held that the Director of the State Intelligence Service should have brought this information for the attention of other intelligence agencies including army intelligence service at a meeting of Intelligence Analysis Board held on 9th of April 2019.
Meanwhile, the High Court trial-at-Bar bench observed that the law enforcement authorities including the Attorney General’s Department should have reconsidered their decision to frame criminal charges against the accused since they have not inquired the steps taken by accused to prevent the possible terrorist attack. The court observed that the prosecution should have been more cautious prior to framing criminal charges since it affects country’s criminal justice system and the liberty of the persons.
The charges have been filed without taking into consideration the steps taken by accused. The prosecution evidence has also failed to suggest the steps to be taken by accused to prevent the attack. The prosecution should have been more cautious when framing charges against state officials in a situation where there is no sufficient evidence, the court observed.
While explaining the pathetic situation of Easter Sunday attacks, the trial-at-Bar bench said meting out justice does not mean making people guilty without substantial evidence.
Pujith Jayasundara and Hemasiri Fernando were accused of failing to take measures to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks despite having prior knowledge of the attack.
