Maithripala vs. Attorney General – sllr 2019 volume 2 page 258

In the case of MAITHRIPALA (Accused‑Petitioner) vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL (Complainant‑Respondent), the court addressed whether a sentence below the mandatory minimum of seven years under section 365B(2)(b) of the Penal Code is permissible, the legality of imposing a suspended sentence versus a custodial sentence for grave sexual offences against a minor, and the authority of a succeeding High Court Judge to vary a predecessor’s judgment. The holding established that the minimum mandatory term could not be lawfully reduced in light of the gravity of the offence and the accused’s conduct, including non-compliance with compensation orders. The earlier judgments involving suspended sentences and their subsequent variation were set aside, and a custodial sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonme