Senior Buddhist monk imprisoned for ten years for sexually abusing a novice monk

The Court of Appeal has decided to affirm the ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed on a senior Buddhist monk who was found guilty of severely sexually abusing a seven-year-old novice monk. This decision was made by dismissing the appeal petition filed by the monk against the said sentence.

This series of tragic incidents was reported during the period between November 23, 2014, and January 23, 2015. During that time, the victimized novice monk who was abused was seven years old, and he faced this crime while residing in the same temple where the accused senior monk resided.

Previously, the Polonnaruwa High Court had found this monk guilty under two counts of severe sexual abuse charges filed under Section 365B(2)(b) of the Penal Code in relation to the incident. At the end of the trial, rigorous imprisonment sentences of ten years were imposed for each charge, and the court had also ordered that both sentences should run concurrently.

In addition, a fine of Rs. 50,000 was imposed for each charge, and if not paid, an additional six months of simple imprisonment was ordered. Furthermore, the High Court had ordered the accused monk to pay a compensation of one hundred thousand rupees to the child victim of sexual abuse. It was after this that the monk appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging his conviction and the imposed sentences.

The Court of Appeal bench, consisting of Justices Amal Ranaraja and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, considered this appeal. The court particularly emphasized that the child victim had provided detailed and consistent testimony regarding the incidents. The bench pointed out that minor discrepancies identified during cross-examination were in no way relevant to the main sexual abuse charges, and therefore, the credibility of the victim's testimony could not be rejected based on them.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed that since the testimony provided by the child victim was reliable and true, the judge who heard the case had full authority to deliver a verdict based on that evidence. During this appeal hearing, Additional Solicitor General Shanil Kularatne appeared before the court on behalf of the Attorney General.