Nimalachandra vs. Attorney General – sllr 2012 volume 2 page 395

In the case between NIMALACHANDRA and ATTORNEY GENERAL, the court addressed the issue of whether, under Section 364(1) of the Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual intercourse was committed without the consent or against the will of the victim, and whether such proof necessitates corroborative evidence. The decision established that conviction based solely on uncorroborated complainant testimony is hazardous, particularly in light of potential false accusations arising from personal animus or contextual inconsistencies. The judgment scrutinized the feasibility of the alleged incident occurring under the cited conditions and evaluated the effect of delays and omissions in reporting. It was determined that reasonable doubt existed with respect