Priyantha Lal Ramanayake v. The Hon. Attorney General – SC APPEAL NO. 31/2011-2011

In the case between Priyantha Lal Ramanayake (Accused-Appellant) and the Hon. Attorney General, the court addressed whether a magistrate erred in law by imposing the burden of proof upon the accused to establish his defense on a balance of probabilities, notwithstanding that the accused’s position was a simple denial and not premised upon any statutory exception. It was determined that such an approach constituted a misdirection regarding the applicable legal standard, as the obligation remained with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The holding reaffirmed the principle that, where the accused’s evidence—regardless of whether it is accepted or rejected—introduces reasonable doubt concerning the prosecution’s case, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused. Relia