Anuruddha Samaranayake and Four Others vs. Attorney General – sllr 2013 volume 1 page 102

In the case between Anuruddha Samaranayake and others (Appellants) and the Attorney General (Respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the circumstantial evidence, including recovery and possession of allegedly stolen property, identification parade evidence, and joint representation, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt for charges of murder, conspiracy, robbery, unlawful assembly, and attempted murder. The court held that while circumstantial evidence against the 1st accused was sufficient for some counts, the convictions of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th accused were quashed, and the conviction for the 4th accused was partly affirmed and partly set aside. The decision reaffirmed that evidentiary presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Ordinance and the burden of proof in