Sugathasena and Another v. The State – sllr 1988 volume 1 page 405

In the case between Gamini Sugathasena and Another (appellants) and The State (respondent), the court addressed the issues of evidentiary standards relating to identification of the 1st accused, the procedure followed in recording contradictions in witness statements, and the admissibility of separated innocuous portions of confessional statements within the framework of sections 17(2) and 25 of the Evidence Ordinance. The holding determined that, due to insufficient and inconclusive evidence—particularly on the identification of the accused and procedural irregularities in marking contradictions—convictions could not be sustained. The principle reaffirmed was that proof beyond reasonable doubt is a prerequisite for conviction, and only properly admitted evidence can support such a finding