Somaratne vs The Attorney-General – sllr 1986 volume 1 page 217

In the case between Somaratne (Plaintiff) and The Attorney-General (Defendant), the court addressed whether the 2nd accused was guilty of house-breaking and theft under sections 443, 369, and 394 of the Penal Code on the basis of common intention. It was held that the conviction relied on insufficient circumstantial evidence and an improper application of criminal liability for common intention, particularly given the lack of a proper evaluation of the 2nd accused’s explanation and the presumptions under section 114(a) of the Evidence Ordinance. The holding reaffirmed that a mere presence at the scene, without clear evidence of participation or possession of stolen goods, does not support a finding of common intention or guilt. Reliance was placed on statutory interpretation and precedent