26 Feb 2026
Conviction affirmed; sentence reduced from 10 years to 8 years imprisonment to reflect lesser culpability and considerations of age and rehabilitation while maintaining deterrence; sentence to run from date of conviction (20.12.2024); three strokes of whipping affirmed.
17 Nov 2025
Conviction is valid because the accused pleaded guilty voluntarily and with understanding via a Tamil interpreter and admitted facts; given the weights (0.78g heroin and 1.63g monoacetylmorphines) and that both items were from the same seized package constituting one transaction, concurrent sentences are appropriate; a custodial sentence of 16 months from date of arrest for each count (to run concurrently) falls within statutory limits and properly balances mitigating factors against public interest in deterring drug offences.
23 Oct 2025
Court accepted guilty plea as mitigation but found it outweighed by the defendant's pattern of repeated like offences within a short period and the need for deterrence and public interest; therefore imposed a custodial sentence of 3 years and one stroke of whipping, to run from date of conviction/sentencing (23-10-2025).
21 Oct 2025
The High Court held the Sessions Court did not misapply the law or abuse its discretion in ordering the sentence to commence from the date of sentencing; the five year imprisonment, one stroke of the cane and two year supervision order were within legal limits and properly considered in light of the applicant's two prior convictions, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
9 Jul 2025
Balancing public interest against accused's mitigation, the court found the offence (robbery with a knife in a public pharmacy) sufficiently serious to require a deterrent sentence; the one transaction rule did not apply because offences occurred on separate occasions, therefore the sentence of 3 years imprisonment and one stroke of whipping was imposed to commence upon conclusion of the accused's existing sentence for case no. BA-62RS-28-05/2025.
9 Jul 2025
Court found the offence serious (daytime robbery in a public pharmacy with a parang) warranting significant punishment; guilty plea and remorse were mitigating but insufficient to outweigh public interest. One transaction rule did not apply as offences occurred on different dates/occasions; applying Sections 282 and 292 CPC and totality principle the court ordered imprisonment of 3 years and 1 stroke of whipping, to commence upon conclusion of the accused's sentence in case no. BA-62RS-30-05/2025.
30 Jun 2025
Court accepted guilty plea and evidential exhibits established robbery with use/threat of a knife; applied mitigation for early plea but increased severity because accused faced multiple similar charges indicating recurrence; sentenced to concurrent terms of 3 years imprisonment for each count with 4 strokes each, to run from 15-05-2025, resulting in effective 3 years imprisonment and total 8 strokes.
30 Jun 2025
Accused's guilty plea and supporting prosecution evidence established the elements of robbery under Section 392 KK; guilty plea warranted mitigation but was outweighed by the accused's concurrent/successive offending and public interest; under Section 292(1) KTJ the sentence must commence after completion of the prior sentence, resulting in a 2-year imprisonment term and 3 strokes of the cane to run after the prior 3-year sentence.
18 Apr 2025
Because the accused pleaded guilty, the plea was afforded mitigating weight but the statutory minimum under s39C(1) DDA 1952 controlled the outcome; the court imposed the minimum lawful sentence of five years' imprisonment, ordered one stroke, and held the sentence to commence from the date of arrest for this charge (17.10.2024), rejecting the accused's request to backdate to earlier detention.
28 Nov 2024
High Court held Sessions Judge did not err in principle and properly exercised discretion to order the 6‑year sentence for the s.395 robbery to run consecutively to the 5‑year s.392 sentence because the offences involved different victims, were serious and implicated public safety; mitigating features (no proved prior convictions, age) were considered but did not outweigh factors warranting consecutive sentences, therefore appeal dismissed.