Attorney General V. Visuvalingam

1946 Present: Cannon J.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellant and VISUVALINGAM,.
Respondent

3.52-M. C. Kayts, 6,996.

Evidence- Contradictions of witnesses-Duty of Court Lu distinguish between material and immaterial Contradictions.

Before the evidence of a witness is rejected on the ground of contradiction s ii is very important that the tribunal should direct its mind as to what contradictions matter and what do not and that the witness should be given an opportunity of explaining those that matter.

APPEAL against an order of acquittal entered by the Magistrate of Kayts

J. 0. T. Weeraratne, C.C., for the complainant, appellant.

S. N. Rajaratnam (with him S. P. M. Rajendram), for the accused, respondent.

May 24, 1946. CANNON J.-
 
In this case the complainant, a woman, charged the accused, a man with causing her grievous hurt by fracturing three of her ribs with the handle of an axe.

For the prosecution two eye Witness and two medical witnesses gave evidence. The eye-witnesses were the complainant herself and her daughter aged ten. ?They tact that the complainant was dragged by the accused to a tree to which she was tied and th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document