Meegastenna Gamaralalage Pushpa Kumara Vs. Attorney General – CA 83/2013-2015

In the case between Meegastenna Gamaralalage Pushpa Kumara (Accused-Appellant) and the Attorney General (Respondent), the court addressed whether convictions and sentences for robbery of a three-wheeler and murder under the Penal Code were properly established by the evidence, focusing on confessions, witness testimony, and the doctrine of common intention. The court held that both direct and circumstantial evidence, alongside voluntary confessions and corroborating witness statements, sufficiently established the shared intent and participation of the appellant in the acts charged. It was reaffirmed that when an accused is last seen with the victim and incriminating evidence is unexplained, adverse inference may be drawn pursuant to legal precedent and statutory principles, notably refere