109-NLR-NLR-V-70-THE-QUEEN-v.-A.-ADAMBAWA.pdf
The Queen v. Adanibawa
543
«•
[Court of Criminal Appeal]
Present: H. N. G. Fernando, S.P.J. (President), Abeyesundere, J.,and Manicavasagar, J.THE QUEEN v. A. ADAMBAWAAppeal No. 33 of 1966, with Application No. 22S. C. 19165—M. C. Batticaloa, 16043
Charge of murder—Summing-up—Non-direction.
Where, in a prosecution for murder, the evidence showed that there wasonly one injury on the deceased and that it had been possibly caused by aclub—
Held, that the jury should have been directed that they could convict theaccused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the basis that hehad no intention to kill but only the knowledge of likelihood of death.
^.PPEAJL against a conviction at a trial before the Supreme Court.
K.Sivasvbramaniam, with A. R. Mansoor and D. V. A. Joseph(Assigned), for the Accused-Appellant.
• • * ^
E. R. de Fonseka, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
544
H. N. G. FERNANDO, S.P.J.—The Queen v. Adambawa
April 30, 1966. H. N. G. Fernando, S.P.J.—
Having regard to the fact that there was only one injury and thepossibility that it had been caused by a club, we think it was the duty ofthe learned Judge to direct the jury that they could convict the accusedof culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the basis that he hadno intention to kill but only the knowledge of likelihood of death. Asthis direction was not given we set aside the conviction and sentence formurder, and substitute a conviction of culpable homicide not amountingto murder and pass a sentence of eight years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Conviction altered.