ARUNA ALIAS PODI RAJA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL

ARUNA ALIAS PODI RAJA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL

COURT OF APPEAL
SISIRA DE ABREW, J.
UPALY ABEYRATNE, J.
CA 7 1 / 2003
HC BADULLA 67/2000
AUGUST 31ST, 2009

Penal Code - Section 365 - Evidence Ordinance - Section 27  Recodes - Dock Statement - Accused proved to be innocent - Is them burden on the Accused to proved anything? men is he expected to offer an explanation? - Ellenborough principle - Exeception?

The accused - appellant was convicted of the murder of a man called  W and was sentenced to death.

In appeal it was contended that the trial Judge failed to judicially  evaluate the items of circumstantial evidence and the reliance made by the trial Judge on Section 27 recoveries was erroneous.

Held:

(1) When an allegation of murder is leveled against a person if he had acquired the knowledge of the items he would have divulged  the way he acquired such knowledge in his dock statement which is not even subjected to cross examination. This is the normal  behavior. The conditions reached by the trial Judge that the appellant acquired the knowledge of the items recovered by an act done  by him is not objectionable.

(2) A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document