Samarathunga Harsha Pathiranage Sunil Somasiri Alakanda vs Hon. Attorney General – CA NO. 316/2006-2012

In the case between Samarathunga Harsha Pathiranage Sunil Somasiri (Accused-Appellant) and the Hon. Attorney General (Respondent), the court examined whether the convictions and sentences for murder and attempted murder were supported by sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It was determined that the identification evidence and circumstantial facts presented were inadequate to prove guilt, as the main witness delayed naming the accused, and physical evidence lacked corroboration. The convictions and sentences were therefore set aside, with the Accused-Appellant acquitted of all charges. The decision reaffirmed the legal principle that conviction must be based on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, referencing deficiencies in witness reliability and lack of substant