Wijesinghe and Three Others v. The State – sllr 1984 volume 1 page 155

In the case between Wijesinghe and Three Others (Plaintiffs) and The State (Defendant), the court considered the propriety of the trial judge’s directions to the jury on the burden of proof and the concept of common intention, particularly in the context of an alleged sudden fight. The court held that the instructions provided were legally flawed, with the trial judge permitting conjecture on the issue of sudden fight and improperly placing a heavier burden on the accused regarding exceptions to murder. It was reaffirmed that the verdict must be based on proven facts and that the establishment of common intention in the course of a sudden fight requires clear, exceptional evidence. The decision relied on established legal principles concerning burden of proof and the necessity of clear fac