Karunaratne v. Attorney General – sllr 1998 volume 3 page 261

In the case between Karunarathne and the Attorney General, the court addressed whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant, Mahara Lekamlage Kularatne, solicited or accepted gratification in contravention of the Bribery Act. It was determined that, due to inconsistencies and absence of corroborative evidence concerning the dates and nature of the alleged offences, the standard of proof required for a conviction was not met. The decision reaffirmed the principle that substantive, consistent, and corroborated evidence is necessary to sustain criminal liability under the Bribery Act. Reliance was placed on established evidentiary standards and precedents concerning the sufficiency of proof in criminal proceedings, with the impact being a reinforced sa