Mahage Sampath Fernando alias Champika vs. The Attorney General – CA HCC/0005/19-2022

In the case between the Attorney General (representing the State) and Mahage Sampath Fernando alias Champika (Second Accused-Appellant), the court examined the validity of a conviction and sentence for conspiracy to murder, relying on circumstantial evidence. It was determined that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt due to the absence of direct or substantive corroborative evidence. The standards governing convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence were reaffirmed, requiring a clear, unbroken chain of proof. The decision referenced established case law on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, underscoring that mere suspicion and association do not suffice for a conviction. The court ultimately held that the conviction and sentence were n