An approximately 80-year-old woman who had been sentenced to death by the Hambantota High Court for a murder that occurred in 1993 has been acquitted and released by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal, delivering its verdict yesterday (18), ruled that there was no credible and consistent evidence proving the accused’s involvement in the crime, and therefore set aside the death sentence.
The appellant, Sirima Edirisuriya, had been charged alongside two others—Pannila Gamage Ranjith and Jinadasa Madawan Arachchi—over the murder of Meegahalandadurage Jayasena on January 18, 1993, in the Modarapiliwela area in Ambalantota. The case was filed in the Hambantota High Court under case number HC 115/1999.
While all three were initially convicted in the first trial, one of the accused died later, and another passed away during the second trial. Following the first trial, two of the convicted individuals, including Sirima Edirisuriya, appealed the judgment of the Hambantota High Court. After considering the submissions from both parties, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial. During the retrial, another accused passed away, leaving only Sirima Edirisuriya. She was once again sentenced to death by the High Court of Hambantota.
Through her legal counsel—Attorneys Darshana Kuruppu, Sahan Weerasinghe, and Tharushi Gamage—the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal, claiming that the conviction was based on unreliable and contradictory witness testimony.
Key Arguments Presented in the Appeal
The appeal was heard before Justices B. Sasi Mahendran and Amal Ranaraja, and was argued on June 23, 2025.
The central ground of appeal was that the High Court judge had failed to properly assess serious contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the main prosecution witnesses, which caused significant prejudice to the appellant.
For example:
The deceased’s elder daughter , a key prosecution witness, had given conflicting accounts: In the initial inquest, she stated that only two people were involved in the assault. Later, she claimed three individuals, including the appellant, were present. During police statements, she gave minimal information about what the appellant allegedly did. During the trial, she introduced new claims, such as saying the appellant had hit the deceased—details not previously mentioned to police or in the inquest.
The younger daughter of the deceased also gave inconsistent statements: In early statements, she did not mention that any of the accused were armed. In court, she alleged that the accused carried weapons—another previously unreported detail.
The deceased’s wife testified that her daughter had not told her that the appellant struck the deceased, raising doubts about the credibility of that claim.
The defense pointed out that these contradictions significantly weakened the prosecution’s case and failed to establish the appellant’s presence or participation at the crime scene beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Ruling
In their judgment delivered on July 18, 2025, the Court of Appeal observed, “The prosecution has failed to present compelling evidence that unequivocally establishes the appellant’s participatory presence at the scene of the alleged crime. The foundation of the prosecution’s case is precariously built on inconsistent and unreliable witness testimonies.”.
Justice Amal Ranaraja, delivering the ruling, declared that the conviction, judgment, and death sentence were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges. Justice B. Sasi Mahendran concurred with the judgment.
The court also directed the Registrar to forward the judgment to the High Court of Hambantota for compliance.
