KUSUMADASA VS. STATE

COURT OF APPEAL
RANJITH SILVA. J
SlSIRA DE ABREW. J
LECAMWASAM. J
CA 72/2005 (DB)
HC RATNAPURA 95/2001
FEBRUARY 2,8,2011.

Penal Code - murder - Section 296 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Inference to be drawn? - Evidence Ordinance- Section 114(g) - Ellenborough principle - only when a strong prima facie case has been made out?

The accused appellant was convicted of the murder of one J and was sentenced to death. The case for the prosecution depended on circumstantial evidence

In appeal

Held:

(1) In considering the force and effect of circumstantial evidence, in a trial for murder, the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused loses a considerable part of its significance if the prosecution has failed to fix the exact time of the death of the deceased.

(2) To apply the dictum of Lord Ellenborough it is incumbent on the prosecution to put forward a strong prima facie case. When the prosecution has not put forward a strong prima facie case the dictum of Lord Ellenborough cannot be applied. It cannot be used to give life to a weak case put forward by the prosecution.

(3) In a case