Baratha’s bodyguard Gamini, shot at Duminda’s head twice, while he was leaving, causing the incident: revealed in Supreme Court Baratha’s bodyguard Gamini, shot at Duminda’s head twice, while he was leaving, causing the incident: revealed in Supreme Court
Jul 25, 2018

Baratha’s bodyguard fired first Featured

The Attorney General’s Department agreed again today that the bodyguard of Bharatha Lakshman, Gamini, first fired gunshots not once but twice penetrating through the forehead of Duminda Silva.

President Counsel, Anuja Premarathna made submissions today when the appeal by former MP Duminda Silva requesting the court to acquit him was taken up for hearing before the bench of 5 Supreme Court Judges chaired by Chief Justice Priyasath Dep.

The President Counsel further stated that Bharatha Lakshman’s bodyguard, Gamini fired gunshots at former MP Duminda Silva while he was turning back to leave the scene and this episode of shooting by Gamini led to every other subsequent incident.

President Counsel Anuja Premarathna reiterated today several factors that were agreed upon by all including the Attorney General’s Department.

The factors agreed with the Attorney General’s department are:

Duminda Silva sustained gunshots injuries first
Bharatha Lakshman’s bodyguard, Gamini fired two gunshots to Duminda Silva’s head.

Soon after he received gunshots, Duminda Silva was fatally injured and was removed from the scene and rushed to the hospital.

President Counsel, Anuja Premarathna stated although all the parties including the Attorney General’s Department admitted that Duminda Silva was first shot. The majority trial at bar judgment had ignored this important fact.

President council said it is surprising to note that the majority judgment by Honorable Padmini Ranawaka stated that a case has been filed against Gamini for causing grievous hurt to Former MP Duminda Silva when there is no such case filed at all.

He questioned how the honorable judge arrive at such a conclusion, as nothing of this sort was revealed in evidence.

The President Counsel further pointed out that the Bharatha Lakshman’s faction started the shooting as Duminda Silva was turning to leave the scene.

He said that every incident erupted because Bharatha Lakshman’s bodyguard, Gamini started the shooting.

The President Counsel further stated that both factions would have dispersed if Baratha Lakshman's faction hadn’t fired gunshots injuring Duminda Silva.

He emphasized that when Duminda Silva Arrived at the scene no one including Duminda Silva would have ever imagined that Gamini will fire at Duminda Silva and as such the origin of the incident was sudden.

Under these circumstances, any charges if at all should be directed as personal and individual.

Further, it was pointed out that the prosecution had failed to prove who had shot at Baratha faction when they were running away after shooting Duminda Silva.

Meanwhile, President Counsel, Anura Meddegoda stated that the investigators have fabricated a story on the recovery of firearms with an intention to falsely implicate Duminda Silva.

He pointed out that the accused from whom recovery of such firearms was made had been wrongly arrested at the Airport and, the investigators had forced him to place his signature on blank papers.

The President Counsel pointed out that it is questionable how charges against Duminda Silva for using firearms had been filed.

In addition, President Counsel Saliya Peries stated that he too agreed with the submissions made previously by his two fellow President Counsels.

The oral submissions were concluded today and, Chief Justice Priyasath Dep stated that the written submissions should be filed before August 10th.

The bench of five Supreme Court Judges led by Chief Justice Priyasath Dep advised the Attorney General and the defense counsels to address the written submissions to include matters relating to:

  • Factual and legal discrepancies and misdirections in the judgment of the high court
  • Draw the attention of court on the omissions and contradictions in evidence that has not been considered by the high court
  • Whether the high court order is in accordance with the requirements of the law
  • Address court on legal implications of the unlawful assembly
  • Legality of the evidence placed regarding a purported recovery of firearms
  • Shooting incident at Himbutana