PIYARATNE
vs.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

COURT OF APPEAL
ANIL GOONERATNE. J.
WALGAMA J.
CA 203/2007
HC RATNAPURA 106/2004
OCTOBER 1, 2014
 
Penal Code Section 295 - Convicted for murder - Circumstantial evidence Value of same - Evidence Ordinance Section 27, Section 114, Section 165 - Recovery of a club-

The accused-appellant was convicted for the murder of a fellow security guard. The entire case was based on circumstantial evidence. As a consequence of a statement made to the Police, by the appellant a recovery of 2 gold rings from the appellant's house, a chain pawned to a Rural Bank, and nickel club in a swamp closer to the scene of the crime was recovered. Medical evidence revealed that injuries were caused by a heavy blunt weapon.

It was contended by the accused-appellant that the [1] trial judge erred in law on the principles relating to Section 27 recovery of a nickel rod [2] that items of circumstantial evidence were inadequate [3] no evaluation of the evidence [4] prosecution has not excluded the possibility of a third party committing the crime.

Held:

(1) Recovery under Section 27 of the nickel rod from a swamp and closer to the scene of the crime