Anil Jayantha v. The Attorney General – sllr 2002 volume 3 page 375

The case between Anil Jayanta (accused-appellant) and the Attorney-General addressed the duty of a prosecutor in capital charge cases to draw the trial judge’s attention to discrepancies in evidence that raise serious doubts regarding the accused’s guilt. The court held that the presence of material inconsistencies between witness testimony in court and earlier police statements, along with the prosecutor’s omission to highlight these discrepancies, rendered the conviction unsafe. This decision reaffirmed the principle that convictions, particularly in capital cases, must rest on evidence that is free from significant doubt, and that the judicial function involves closely scrutinizing the reliability of such evidence. Reliance was placed on legal precedents including Fernando v. The Queen,