Ravishankar vs Attorney General – sllr 2015 volume 1 page 083

In the case between Ravishankar and the Attorney General, the court addressed the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction for murder. The appellate review focused on whether the accused’s failure to provide an explanation for incriminating circumstances, alongside reliance on a dock statement instead of testimonial evidence, was adequate for upholding the conviction. The case reaffirmed the principle that, in prosecutions based solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the accused’s guilt. Reference was made to established authorities, including the Ellenborough doctrine, with the decision emphasizing that silence or a lack of satisfactory explanation may allow for adverse inferences. The conviction and s