16 Jul 2026.
A Court of Appeal judgment has drawn renewed attention to the severe delays that continue to plague Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system, after revealing that a child who was allegedly subjected to grave sexual abuse in 2001 was only able to testify before the High Court in 2023 — approximately 22 years after the alleged offence.
The ruling, delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices P. Kumararatnam and Pradeep Hettiarachchi, highlighted the extraordinary passage of time between the alleged abuse and the trial. The complainant, who was about 11 years old at the time of the incident, was 33 years old when he finally gave evidence.
The case arose from an indictment filed by the Attorney General against K.S. Rathnasiri on charges of kidnapping a minor from lawful guardianship and grave sexual abuse under Sections 354 and 365B(2)(b) of the Penal Code. The offences were alleged to have occurred in Embilipitiya between October 2001 and April 2002.
According to the prosecution, the accused lured the child to a chena cultivation and sexually abused him, later threatening to expose earlier incidents of abuse by others if the child informed his parents. The victim and his father eventually testified decades later, illustrating the profound difficulties faced by survivors when cases remain unresolved for years.
The High Court convicted the accused and imposed five years’ rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping from lawful guardianship and 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for grave sexual abuse, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The court also imposed fines of Rs. 5,000 on each count and directed the payment of Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the victim.
On appeal, the defence challenged the conviction on several grounds, including alleged discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence and the claim that the child had not been taken without the consent of his lawful guardian. Rejecting the argument, Justice Kumararatnam held that the father’s testimony clearly established that the child had been removed without his knowledge or consent, thereby satisfying the elements of the offence.
The Court also addressed inconsistencies regarding dates and other details in the testimony. The judges observed that both the victim and his father were recounting events more than two decades after they occurred, and that minor discrepancies were inevitable given the passage of time. Such inconsistencies, the Court held, did not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case or the credibility of the complainant.
The judgment has become a stark example of the broader challenges facing Sri Lanka’s justice system. Legal observers have long warned that criminal cases, particularly those involving child sexual abuse, can remain pending for many years because of court backlogs, repeated postponements, shortages of judicial resources, and procedural delays. For child victims, such delays can have profound consequences: memories fade, evidence becomes harder to obtain, and survivors are forced to relive traumatic experiences long after the events occurred.
Child-protection advocates say the case underscores the urgent need for faster investigation and trial procedures, stronger witness-support services, and specialised mechanisms for handling cases involving children. They argue that justice delayed not only affects the rights of the accused but can also deepen the trauma experienced by survivors of sexual abuse.
By the time this case reached trial, the child who had allegedly suffered the abuse had spent most of his life waiting for an opportunity to tell the court what happened. The Court of Appeal’s decision therefore stands not only as a ruling on one conviction, but also as a powerful reminder of the human cost of prolonged delays in Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system.
(With inputs from Daily Mirror)