SL Advocacy

Evaluation of evidence - Sec.134 of the Evidence Ordinance - police, excise, narcotic and bribery officers - corroboration ---------------------- "Devundarage Nihal vs Hon. Attorney General was overruled by the Supreme Court in S.C.Appeal 154/10. The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement in law that the evidence of a police officer who conducted an investigation / raid resulting in the arrest of an offender needs to be corroborated in material particulars. F.N.D. Jayasooriya,J, in C.A.87/97 A.G. vs. Mohemed Saheed too held that there is no legal requirement that the evidence of the Chief Police Officer who conducted the raid of a heroin case should be corroborated in regard to material particulars emanating from an independent source. In the instant case it is significant to note that even the chief investigating police officer IP Thennkoon, who conducted investigations, who received the first information, on whose instructions PC. Senaratne the only eye witne

Held, that according to Sec. 196 of the CCPA reading and explaining of the charge to the accused is mandatory and non-compliance will result in vitiating the trial and non-awarding of defence as per Section 200(1) of the CCPA results vacation of trial. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA  Mohamed Ali Sameed Smail v. The Attorney General Case No. CA/160/2015   Before : S. Devika de L. Tennekoon, J & S. Thurairaja PC, J Counsel : Darshana Kuruppu for the Accused-Appellant                   Shanaka Wijesinghe DSG for the Complainant- Respondent Decided on : 27th October 2017 S. Thurairaja PC J The Accused Appellant was indicted before the High Court of Kandy for committing an offence of Murder punishable under Section 296 of the Penal Code. After the trial he was convicted for the murder and sentenced to death. Being aggrieved with the said order the Appellant had preferred an appeal to this court. The appella