Senanayakage Indika Ruwan vs The Hon. Attorney General – CA/HCC/0360/2018-2024

In the case between the Hon. Attorney General (Complainant-Respondent) and Senanayakage Indika Ruwan (Accused-Appellant), the court addressed the sufficiency of circumstantial and forensic evidence, alongside the requirements for an effective alibi defense under section 126A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in relation to charges of armed robbery and related offences. It was held that the circumstantial evidence, including recovery of weapons and a robbed safe under the appellant’s control, and eyewitness testimony, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the alibi defense deemed procedurally and substantively inadequate. The court reaffirmed the principle that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Relying on establ