Jagathsena and Others v. Perera, G.D.D., Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department and Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike (Aggrieved Party) – sllr 1992 volume 1 page 371

In the case between Jagathsena and Others (six accused-appellants) and G. D. D. Perera (Inspector, CID) and Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike (the aggrieved party), the court addressed the scope of appellate review in criminal proceedings, the admissibility and assessment of expert and witness evidence, and the applicability of criminal procedure provisions including representation rights under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. It was held that the appellate court holds a duty to independently reexamine and test the evidence when reasonable doubt arises, notwithstanding the factual findings of a Magistrate. The principle was reaffirmed that membership of an unlawful assembly and intent must be established by clear evidence; inconsistencies in testimony and expert evidence that ra