Sudharman De Silva Vs. The Attorney General – CA PHC/APN/95/2018-1986

In the case between Rathnayake Wasala Mohottilage Rathnasiri alias Ralahamy (Accused-Petitioner) and the Attorney General, the courts addressed the sufficiency of evidence for a murder conviction, the validity of imposing a death sentence, and procedural objections related to trial in absentia. It was determined that the evidence established the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and no exceptional grounds were identified to justify revision of the original verdict. The decision reaffirmed the principle that revision is a remedy reserved for cases of exceptional injustice or manifest illegality, referencing established precedents governing revisionary jurisdiction. The outcome underscores that procedural propriety and cogent, credible evidence are decisive in affirming convictions