P.P. Jinadasa v. The Attorney-General – CA 167/2009-2009

In the case between P.P. Jinadasa (Accused-Appellant) and the Attorney-General (Respondent), the court addressed whether the trial judge erred in law by failing to treat the accused’s dock statement as evidence, and whether this resulted in the improper rejection of the defense. The court determined that a dock statement by an accused must be regarded as evidence, subject to inherent limitations such as not being given under oath and not tested by cross-examination. The holding reaffirmed the principle that dock statements must be considered on their merits, and if they either raise a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s case or are otherwise credible, they may affect the outcome. The decision relied on prior authorities including *Queen vs. Buddarakkitha Thera* and *Queen vs. Kula