Jesuthasan Elengeswaran vs. The Attorney General – CA-HCC/274/2023-2025

In the case between Jesuthasan Elengeswaran and the Attorney General, the court addressed the issue of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder indictment. It was held that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the blood sample attributed to the deceased was, in fact, obtained from the deceased’s body, thereby not eliminating alternative hypotheses regarding the cause of death. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that where a conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish that no other reasonable explanation exists except the accused’s guilt. The decision relied on established precedents governing circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity for rigorous evidentiary standards