Murugaiya Chandramogan vs. Hon. Attorney General – CA HCC 123/2013-2024

In the case between the Hon. Attorney General and Murugaiya Chandramogan, the court considered the admissibility and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence relating to charges of murder and robbery. The critical issues examined included the use of a witness statement under Section 33 of the Evidence Ordinance without affording cross-examination during non-summary inquiry, and whether the accused’s possession of property claimed to have been stolen was adequate to establish guilt. The findings established that procedural irregularities, particularly the admission of untested evidence and insufficient reasoning regarding possession of stolen property, vitiated the conviction. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that strict adherence to evidentiary and procedural safeguards, including the r