අපරාධ නඩුවකදී සාක්ෂිකරුවකු ලෙසින් චූදිතයකුට එරෙහිව එම චූදිතයාගේ කලත්‍රයා සාක්ෂියට කැඳවීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් වැදගත් වන්නේ සාක්ෂි ආඥාපනතේ 120 වන වගන්තියේ 120(2) සිට (5) දක්වා වන උප වගන්ති වේ. එම උප වගන්ති පහත පරිදි ය.
(2) In criminal proceedings against any person the husband or wife of such person respectively shall be a competent witness if called by the accused, but in that case all communications between them shall cease to be privileged.
(3) In criminal proceedings against a husband or wife for any bodily injury or violence inflicted on his or her wife or husband, such wife or husband shall be a competent and compellable witness.
(4) In criminal proceedings against a husband or wife for any attempt to cause any bodily injury or violence on his or her wife or husband, such wife or husband shall be a competent witness for the prosecution.
(5) In criminal proceedings against a husband or wife for an offence punishable under section 362B or 362C of the Penal Code, the wife or husband of the accused shall be a competent witness for the prosecution.
මේ උප වගන්ති අනුව සාක්ෂිකරුවකු ලෙසින් චූදිතගේ කලත්‍රයා කැඳවීම එතරම් පහසු ක්‍රියාවක් නොවේ.
සාක්ෂි ආඥාපනතේ 118 වන වගන්තියේ දී අධිකරණයකදී සාක්ෂි ලබා දිය හැක්කේ කා හටදැයි කියා තිබේ. එම වගන්තිය පහත පරිදි වේ.
All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
නමුත් මේ 120(2) – (5) දක්වා උප වගන්ති මගින් එකී 118 වන වගන්තියේ අදාළ වීම යම් ආකාරයට සීමා කිරීමක් කරයි. විශේෂයෙන් ම මේ උප වගන්ති වලින් සීමා කරන්නේ කලත්‍රයකු සාක්ෂියට කැඳවීම සම්බන්ධයෙනි.
මේ ආකාරයේ සීමාවක් පැනවීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් වන මූලධර්මය බෙස්ට් විසින් පහත ලෙසින් දක්වා තිබේ.
“Husband and wife, say our books, are considered as one and the same person in law, and to have the same affections and interests; from whence it has been established as a general rule that the husband cannot be a witness for or against the wife, nor the wife be a witness for or against the husband, by reason of the implacable dissension which might be caused by it, and the great danger of perjury from taking the oaths of persons under so great a bias, and the extreme hardship of the case ” [Best on Evidence— 12th Edition]
මේ අනුව අපරාධ නඩුවකදී 120(2) – (5) දක්වා උප වගන්ති වලින් ආවරණය වන කාරණාවක් සඳහා කලත්‍රයකුගේ සාක්ෂිය කැඳවීමට අවශ්‍ය නම් ඒ සඳහා ප්‍රථමයෙන් ම විවාහය ශුන්‍ය සහ බලරහිත විවාහයක් බවට දිසා අධිකරණයෙන් පත් කර ගත යුතු වේ. මෙහිදී සාක්ෂි ආඥාපනතේ 122 වන වගන්තිය ද අදාළ වේ. එම වගන්තිය පහත පරිදි ය.
No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married, nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other and except in cases mentioned in section 120 (2).
සාක්ෂි නීතියට අදාළව මෙකී කරුණ පිළිබඳව සාකච්ඡා වූ විනිශ්චිත නඩු තීන්දු කිහිපයක් ම පවතී. එයින් කිහිපයක් පහතින් දක්වමි.
The wife on an accused, who is tried jointly with others, is not a competent witness for the prosecution even against the accused other than her husband. [R v. Marthelis Perera – 11 NLR 29]
Under section 120 (4) of the Evidence Ordinance the wife is a competent witness for the prosecution where a husband is charged under section 486 of the Penal Code with intimidating his wife. [Arumugam v. Seethevi - 55 NLR 162]
In criminal proceedings for violence inflicted on a person other than the accused’s wife, a witness who was the wife of the accused at the time of the non- summary inquiry is competent to give evidence for the prosecution at the trial if, prior to the date of the trial, she obtained an order of nullity in respect of her marriage with the accused. [The Queen v E. N. Aseen Mohideen - 58 NLR 548]
Where the signature o f a woman was alleged to have been forged b y a man in a marriage register (in collusion with the Registrar of Marriages) so as to make out that she was lawfully married to him—
Held, that the woman was a competent witness against the man in a prosecution for forgery. In such a case, it is not necessary that the marriage should first be declared null and void in a civil action instituted by the woman. [The Queen v. Alwis - 62 NLR 236]
To call the wife of the husband under Section 120 (3), it should be proceedings instituted against the husband for causing bodily injury or violence to the wife. Section 120 (3) envisages a situation where husband or wife assaults his or her spouse – but not when sexual intercourse was performed on his wife by the husband.
The prosecution in a case of rape cannot call the wife of the accused to give evidence against her husband. The prosecutrix is not a compatible witness against the accused unless and until the marriage is declared void by the District Court. [Saman Kumara vs Republic of Sri Lanka - (2009) 1 Sri LR 18]
පවත්නා නීති තත්ත්වය මෙසේ හෙයින් කලත්‍රයකුට එරෙහිව අපරාධ නඩුවකදී අනෙක් කලත්‍රයා සාක්ෂියට කැඳවිය හැක්කේ නීතියෙන් පිළිගෙන ඇති අවස්ථාවලදී පමණි. එකී අවස්ථා නීතියේ දී පැහැදිලිව දක්වා ඇත.
අපරාධ අධිකරණයේ කටයුතු කරන නීති වෘත්තිකයන් ට මෙකී කරුණු වැදගත් විය හැක.
Comments
Post a Comment