Wannaku Arachchilage Gunapala v. Attorney General – sllr 2007 volume 1 page 273

In the case between Wannaku Arachchilage Gunapala (Plaintiff/Appellant) and the Attorney-General (Defendant/Respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the non-production of the alleged murder weapon is fatal to a conviction for murder under Penal Code Section 296. It was held that the absence of the physical weapon is not inherently fatal to the conviction when there is credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence, particularly reliable eyewitness testimony. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that material objects are not indispensable for conviction in every case, provided the evidentiary threshold is met by other means. This decision relied on the Evidence Ordinance and relevant precedents such as Hichin v Ahquirt Brothers and Sarwan Singh v State of Punjab, emphasizing