Pannila Gamage Roshan Sampath Kumara v. The Hon. Attorney General – 34/2013-2013

In the case between Pannila Gamage Roshan Sampath Kumara (Accused-Appellant) and the Hon. Attorney General (Respondent), the court addressed whether the conviction and imposition of the death penalty for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence was justified. It was held that the conviction and sentence were affirmed, with the court reiterating that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Reliance was placed on legal principles established in Podisinghe v. King, Don Sunny v. Attorney General, and Queen v. Kularatne, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must point irresistibly to guilt. This judgment underscores the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for conviction when it meets the required legal standard and affirms the careful