Rev. Maharagama Suneetha v. Attorney General – sllr 2006 volume 3 page 266

In REV. MAHARAGAMA SUNEETHA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the court addressed the issue of whether procedural irregularity in handling a witness’s prior inconsistent statement and the evaluation of credibility justified appellate interference with the trial court’s findings. It was held that failure to follow procedural requirements when confronting a witness with a prior inconsistent statement precludes its use for contradiction, and appellate courts should not disturb determinations of witness credibility based solely on such grounds unless findings are perverse. This decision reaffirmed the principle that appellate review of factual determinations is limited, relying on established procedural rules and supporting precedents, and emphasized that corroborative evidence, such as medical testimony,