Sengavelu Chandramogan v. The Hon. Attorney General – 267/2013-2015

In the case between Sengavelu Chandramogan (Accused-Appellant) and The Hon. Attorney General (Respondent), the court addressed whether the conviction for murder (Count 1) was supported by the evidence and reached in accordance with law. It was held that the conviction for murder could not be sustained due to evidentiary contradictions and procedural missteps, particularly concerning the sole eyewitness testimony. The conviction and sentence for murder were set aside, while the conviction for voluntarily causing hurt (Count 2) was affirmed, as it had not been challenged on appeal. This judgment reaffirmed the legal principle that convictions must be based on credible, consistent evidence, and procedural fairness must be maintained. The decision relied on the assessment of evidence and appro