Makawitage Suresh Gunasena vs The Hon. Attorney General – CA/HCC/246-247/19-2024

In the case between the Attorney General’s Department and Makawitage Suresh Gunasena, Jayasinghe Arachchige Nalin Chandimal Jayasinghe, and others, the court addressed the issue of whether circumstantial evidence, coupled with alleged procedural irregularities, was sufficient to sustain convictions for torture under the indictment. It was held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidentiary deficiencies rendered the circumstantial case equally consistent with innocence, thus mandating acquittal. This holding reaffirmed the principle that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The decision relied on relevant precedents such as King v Abeywickrama and Gunawardena v the Republic, emphasizing