Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case As He Was Wrongly Identified As Absconding Accused Linked To LTTE

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 20) set aside the conviction of a Sri Lankan national in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, after finding that he had been wrongly identified as another prime accused person who continued to remain absconding in connection with the offence.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench decision, which refused to interfere with the conviction of the Appellant by the trial court. The Court faulted the Courts below for wrongfully convicting the Appellant-Sri alias Ranjan, because his prefix name “Sri” is the same as that of the absconding prime accused.

Further, the Court noted that the entire prosecution case, which was rested on the testimonies of the PWs 8 and 9, had in their cross-examination admitted that they hadn't mentioned the name of the Appellant during the earlier proceedings, and it was only after his arrest that the Appellant's name was taken by them. The Court said that the belated and improved testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses, without there being any material to link the identity of the Appellant with the absconding accused, would be an abuse of process of law against the Appellant, justifying his acquittal.

“Both witnesses admitted in their cross-examinations that in the earlier trials that they had not mentioned the name “Ranjan” at all, and that the identification of the appellant in that capacity was made only after his arrest and that too during police custody. The belated introduction of this name, years after the alleged incident, renders their testimonies highly suspect. Their silence in earlier proceedings, followed by this subsequent disclosure, constitutes a material improvement rather than a mere lapse of memory.”, the court observed.

The Case

The case arose out of FIR registered by the Q Branch Police Station, Ramanathapuram, for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19672, Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919; Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946; and Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Passport Act, 1967, alleging a conspiracy among several accused persons to rejuvenate the banned LTTE organisation.

According to the prosecution, the accused persons had assembled in Trichy in May 2015 and conspired to send cyanide capsules and chemicals to Sri Lanka to eliminate rival Tamil leaders.

The appellant was alleged to be accused No. 5, “Sri”, who had purportedly supplied 75 cyanide capsules and 60 grams of a chemical substance known as GPS-4. However, he was not arrested until December 2021, despite the case having remained pending since 2015.

The appellant consistently maintained that his real name was Ranjan, not Sri, and that he had been living openly in Trichy since 2012 as a registered Sri Lankan refugee. He had entered India lawfully in 2009 on a valid passport and tourist visa along with his family and had continuously resided at addresses known to local police authorities.

Rejecting his defence, the trial court and High Court convicted the Appellant, leading to the filing of an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta found that the entire prosecution's case was based on belated and improved testimonies of its witnesses, which had wrongfully implicated the Appellant, despite his involvement not being proved via any reliable evidence.

“…the identity of the appellant rests solely on the belated and improved testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9, who admittedly did not disclose the name “Ranjan” in earlier proceedings and introduced it only after the appellant's arrest. There is no contemporaneous description, no documentary linkage, and no independent corroboration connecting the appellant with the alleged absconding accused “Sri” (A-5)…the absence of reliable identification material and the failure of the prosecution to establish how the appellant came to be implicated in the case by linking him as “Sri” using an alias name renders the case on identity wholly doubtful, making it unsafe to sustain the conviction.”, the court observed.

Failure to hold Test Identification Parade After Appellant's Arrest Weakened Prosecution's Case

Another significant infirmity highlighted by the appellant's counsel, and accepted by the Supreme Court, was the failure of the investigating agency to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) after the appellant's arrest. The Court noted that none of the witnesses examined during the investigation had ever identified “Ranjan” as an alias of the absconding accused “Sri”. In fact, the name “Ranjan” did not figure either in the witnesses' earlier statements or in depositions recorded during previous trials arising out of the same case. The description “Sri alias Ranjan” surfaced for the first time only after the appellant's arrest in 2021.

The Court further observed that the FIR itself contained no description linking the appellant to the alleged accused “Sri”. In such circumstances, where the identity of the appellant was admittedly unknown to the witnesses, the failure to hold a TIP struck at the root of the prosecution's case and rendered the identification evidence wholly unreliable.

“In a case where the identity of the accused is not known and TIP has not been conducted, the court has to see if there was any description of the accused either in the FIR or in any of the statement of witness recorded during the investigation.”, the court quoted in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 482.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The Court directed the appellant's immediate release from the Special Camp, Trichy. It further granted him liberty to pursue his request for relocation to Switzerland in accordance with the law.

Cause Title: SRI VERSUS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Click here to download judgment

For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.S. Nanda Kumar, AOR Mr. S. Jayakumar, Adv. Mr. S. Rajendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. T.s. Suresh, Adv. Mr. N.j. Nakeeran, Adv. Mr. Dishant Vashisht, Adv. Ms. Seema Sindhu, Adv. Ms. Kulsum Nesha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.