P.G. Jayatha Bandara & Others vs The Attorney General – CA 196-200/2011-2014

In the case between P.G. Jayatha Bandara, A Upul Dhammika Badara, M.V. Nalinda Dassaayke, V. Sunil Ekanayake, P. Chaminda Ratnayake (accused-appellants) and the Attorney General, the court examined whether the convictions for the offence of rape were sustainable on the evidence presented. It was held that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to inconsistencies in the victim’s identification and contradictions in witness testimony. The principle reaffirmed is that the burden of proof in criminal proceedings lies with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused entitles them to acquittal. Relevant precedents and statutory requirements for proof beyond reasonable doubt were cited, establishing that weak or unrelia