In Brief
The appellant, the informant in a bomb-blast case that killed his father and another person, challenged the High Court's acquittal of three accused convicted by the Fast-Track Court to death or life imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding the prosecution case riddled with contradictions. The informant himself resiled from his initial statements to police during trial; witness accounts at trial diverged markedly from their police investigation statements; educated witnesses (both advocates) denied reading documents they signed; and the investigating officer confirmed the informant never initially named two of the accused as bomb-throwers. The Court held the High Court's reversal was justified, as two reasonable views were possible and the presumption of innocence—reinforced by acquittal—favoured the accused. The Court set aside only the direction to initiate perjury proceedings, given the two deaths were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.