Samaraweera v. The Attorney General – sllr 1990 volume 1 page 256

In Samaraweera v. The Attorney-General, the court considered the appeal of an accused convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Penal Code, following a trial involving four accused and varying outcomes. The appellant challenged the verdict based on the inconsistent treatment of key eyewitness testimony—arguing that since the testimony was discredited in relation to another accused, it should not have been used against the appellant. The court held that the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not an inflexible rule and that a witness’s evidence need not be wholly accepted or rejected; credibility may be assessed on a divisible basis. The judgment reaffirmed that corroborative medical evidence and the broader context of the presented evidence justify reliance on