Wickramaarachchige Nihal Ranjith vs The Attorney General – CA HCC/0170/18-2024

In the case between the Attorney General (Complainant-Respondent) and Wickramaarachchige Nihal Ranjith (Accused-Appellant), the court examined whether the trial judge discharged the duty required under section 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act in evaluating evidence and forming the judgment. The appellate court held that the trial judge’s decision failed to meet the statutory obligations, specifically by not properly analyzing prosecution and defence evidence, and set aside the conviction without ordering a retrial. This decision reaffirmed the need for judicial scrutiny and compliance with statutory requirements when delivering criminal judgments, with reference to section 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and relevant case law, highlighting that failure to do so renders a