Gunawardena v. The Republic of Sri Lanka – sllr 1981 volume 2 page 315

In the case between Gunawardena (the appellant) and the Republic of Sri Lanka, the court addressed the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence—particularly that relating to police dog behavior and inconsistencies in witness testimony—in sustaining a conviction for murder or culpable homicide. It was held that the cumulative circumstantial evidence and discrepancies in testimonies, coupled with misdirections to the jury regarding the presumption of innocence and possible alternative explanations, rendered the conviction unsafe. The court reaffirmed the principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt and that circumstantial evidence must exclude every rational alternative explanation. Reference was made to foundational common law standards regardin