Piyasena and Two Others v. The Attorney General – sllr 1986 volume 2 page 388

In the case between N. T. Piyasena, K. T. Bandupala, and P. P. Gunapala (accused-appellants) and the Attorney-General (respondent), the court addressed whether charging multiple acts of rape, committed as part of a continuous transaction, in a single count constituted duplicity and whether the corroborative and identification evidence in relation to the allegations of rape was sufficient. The findings established that the acts committed by the accused formed a single uninterrupted transaction, justifying the use of a single comprehensive charge for rape. It was further determined that the victim’s testimony, supported by medical and investigative evidence, satisfied the requirements for corroboration and identification, and proper directions to the jury addressed concerns related to uncorr