Ahamad Razlan Razikdeen vs The Attorney General – CA 41/2008-2012

In the case between Ahamad Razlan Razikdeen (Accused Appellant) and the Attorney General (Respondent), the court considered the validity of the conviction based on deposition evidence admitted without the presence and cross-examination of the key witness, Siththi Jeniya. The court found that the procedure for admitting such evidence was not properly followed, specifically that the trial judge allowed the deposition based solely on an unverified assertion of the witness’s absence. There were contradictions between the evidence of the two principal witnesses, and it was determined that the reliance on hearsay without opportunity for cross-examination compromised the integrity of the conviction. The holding reaffirmed the principle that important procedural safeguards must be observed when ad