A verdict after 22 years for the abuse of an 11-year-old child

The Court of Appeal has delivered a decisive verdict, finally delivering justice to the child victim in a sexual abuse case that dragged on for over twenty-two years. The child victim was 11 years old when this incident occurred, and the crime took place between October 2001 and April 2002.

The prosecution has confirmed that the accused lured the child to a land where he carried out cultivation activities and committed the sexual abuse. Furthermore, court records indicate that the accused intimidated and threatened the child, stating that if the incident was revealed to anyone, he would publicize alleged abuse incidents committed by others on previous occasions.

Previously, the High Court had sentenced the accused to five years and ten years of rigorous imprisonment for this crime, ordering both sentences to run concurrently. Additionally, the accused was ordered to pay a fine of five thousand rupees for each charge presented and a compensation of fifty thousand rupees to the victim.

The accused had filed a petition with the Court of Appeal, challenging the imprisonment and fines imposed against him. There, he argued based on five points, including inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the prosecution's failure to prove that the child was taken without the consent of his legal guardian. However, since the evidence provided by the child's father clearly confirmed that the child was taken without his consent, Justice Kumararatnam ruled that the arguments presented by the accused were baseless.

The court also rejected the accused's statement that minor discrepancies regarding the dates of the incident raised reasonable doubt about the case. The court emphasized that since the victim and his father provided testimony more than two decades after the crime occurred, minor inconsistencies in testimony after such a long period are natural. Therefore, the Court of Appeal further stated that this does not affect the prosecution's main case or the victim's credibility.