P.G. Sunil v. Attorney General – CA 40/2015-2015

In the case between P.G. Sunil (accused-appellant) and the Attorney General (respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the conviction and sentence for rape under Section 364(1) of the Penal Code by the High Court of Kandy were appropriate in light of evidentiary shortcomings. The appellate court determined that the conviction for rape was not sustainable due to lack of direct evidence, deficiencies in the identification of the accused, and the prosecution’s own admission of evidentiary weaknesses. The original conviction and sentence were set aside and replaced with a conviction under Section 345 of the Penal Code, involving a reduced sentence and an order for compensation to the victim. This holding relied on the evaluation of both testimonial and medical evidence, emphasizing