Circumstantial evidence must exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence for a conviction; any reasonable doubt mandates acquittal.

JUDGEMENT

1. The accused–appellant was indicted before the High Court of Gampaha for allegedly committing the murder of Ajith Priyankara, an offence punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code. The trial was conducted before the learned High Court Judge of Gampaha without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge found the accused–appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) guilty of the charge of murder, and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to death.

2. Being aggrieved by the said Conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. The grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant are as follows:

1. The learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the salient aspects of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

2. The evidence available is not sufficient and does not give rise to the irrepressible inference that the accused committed the offence’

3. The learned trial Judge has misinterpreted the evidence of the ballistic expert and used such evidence against the accused;

4. The learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the medical evidence with regard to the distance of shooting

5. The learned trial Judge has failed to understand and appreciate the principles relating to the burden of proof and that the burden of proof is with the prosecution

6. The learned Judge has failed to realize that mere suspicion of the commission of an offence does not suffice to arrive at a conclusion of Guilt.

3. As directed by the court, both the appellant and respondent submitted their respective written submissions, which I examined carefully.

Background to the appeal;

4. The appellant, PW1, PW2, and the deceased were friends. On the day of the incident, the deceased, together with PW1 and PW2, had been consuming alcohol at a friend’s house. Thereafter, they contacted the appellant, and all four met near a church in Makola. PW1, PW2, and the deceased arrived in a three-wheeler, while the appellant came in a car.

5. A heated argument on political matters ensued, which escalated into a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased. During the altercation, the appellant pushed the deceased, at which point a gunshot was heard and the deceased collapsed to the ground. PW2 immediately transported the deceased to Kiribathgoda Hospital, from where he was later transferred to the National Hospital, Colombo, where he succumbed to his injuries.

6. Around midnight on the same day, police arrested the appellant at a roadblock. He was traveling in a black car when officers found a gun inside that smelled of gunpowder. The appellant was then taken into custody.

7. Following the arrest, police returned to the crime scene and recovered an empty cartridge. Another cartridge was subsequently found at the scene by PW 12.

8. For the prosecution, seven witnesses testified. Among them, PW 2 was a lay witness, while PW 5, PW 7, PW 6, and PW 12 were police officers who conducted the investigation. PW 9 was the Judicial Medical Officer who performed the autopsy on the deceased, and PW 10 was the Assistant Government Analyst. For the defense, the appellant made a dock statement, and two other witnesses also testified.

9. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses who saw the appellant shooting the deceased. The paramount question, therefore, is whether the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

10.It is well settled that a conviction can lawfully be founded on circumstantial evidence, provided that the circumstances relied upon are cogently and firmly established, are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt, and exclude eve