Appeal
Appellant is an accused and was convicted under IPC, UAPA, Poisons Act, Foreigners Act and Passport Act
2. The appellant herein was arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR being Crime No. 1 of 2015, registered at Q Branch Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 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. He was subjected to trial before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in Sessions Case No. 02/2018. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th July, 2024, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as below: –
“……….”
Appeal preferred against the conviction was dismissed
3. The appeal being Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 698 of 2024 preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment of the trial Court stands rejected by the learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court vide judgment dated 3rd April,2025 which is subjected to challenge in this appeal by special leave.
Brief Facts
4. Succinctly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
Appellant is a Srilankan national holding legally valid Sri Lankan passport and have no criminal antecedents
5. The appellant is a Sri Lankan national, who in the year 2009 came to India along with his wife Smt. Archana and his son Pavalan, holding a legally valid Sri Lankan passport issued by the Government of SriLanka and a valid tourist visa granted by the Government of India. Before departing from SriLanka, the appellant received clearance from the SriLankan law enforcement authorities confirming that the did not have any criminal antecedents. The name of the appellant as recorded in the passport is Ranjan.
Appellant stayed in Trichy for more than a decade without any criminal conduct or complaint
6. Upon arriving in India, the appellant, along with his wife and son registered themselves with the Shankar Nagar Police Station, Chennai, Tamil Nadu as non-camp refugees. In the year 2012, they cancelled their registration with the Shankar Nagar Police Station, Chennai, and re-registered them selves with the K.K. Nagar Police Station at Trichy, TamilNadu. The appellant stayed in Trichy for more than a decade without any criminal conduct or complaint against his name.
Appelant’s wife and son were granted visa and left for Switzerland and sought asylum subsequently appellant was also granted Swiz visa through is wife where she was granted citizenship
7. In the intervening period, the wife of the appellant, and his son were granted a visa by the Government of Switzerland in the year 2014. Both of them accordingly left for Switzerland where they sought asylum and were granted citizenship. The appellant also applied for a Swiss visa through his wife, which was granted to him by the Switzerland Embassy at New Delhi vide letter dated 14th July,2021, subject to police clearance in Tamil Nadu, India.
Appellant was arrested by Q branch and taken into judicial custody confined at puzhal prison for providing wrong name
8. The appellant claims that while he was waiting for police clearance, to his utter shock and surprise, he came to be arrested by the Q Branch Officers of Ramanathapuram on 16th December, 2021 with the allegation that his actual name was “Sri” alias “Ranjan” and that he was an accused in a pending case on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 1/2015. He was accordingly taken into judicial custody and was confined at the Puzhal Prison, Chennai.
Appellant throughout maintained that he has no connection with the so called fake name
9. It may be mentioned here that the appellant has throughout maintained that he is in no way connected with the said accused named “Sri” mentioned in the FIR. The appellant has always been known by and identified himself as “Ranjan” son of Mr. Gunabalasingam. In support of his contention,6the appellant has placed reliance on his passport and various other documents.
FIR allegation was appellant without two others has entered into a conspiracy to rejuvenate the banned Libaration Tigers of Tamil Eelam
10. As per allegations set out in FIR No. 1/2015registered at Q Branch police station, Trichy, the police received secret information in the month of May, 2015 that a conspiracy was being hatched between Krishnakumar (accused No.1/A-1),Subhaskaran (accused No. 4/A-4), Sri (accused No.5/A-5) and Kumaran (accused No. 6/A-6), along with two others, to rejuvenate the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam organisation. The said conspiracy was allegedly hatched at Arasan Bakery, KK Nagar, Trichy.
A5 and A1 handed over cyanide capsules
11. It is alleged that, in furtherance of the said conspiracy, “Sri” (A-5) handed over 75 cyanide capsules and 60 grams of chemical GPS-4 used for making cyanide to Krishnakumar (A-1), with specific directions to proceed to Sri Lanka by ferry and handover the same to one “Kavi”, a Sri Lankan national, so as to re-organise the LTTE cadres and to eliminate rival Tamil leaders.
Acting on the secret information Q branch conducted a vehicle search and recovered cyanide capsules, chemical GPS and mobile phones e.t.c…
12. Acting on the said tip off, the Q Branch police conducted a vehicle search on 20th July, 2015 at 20:30 hours at the Utchipuli Bus Stand on the Ramanathapuram-Rameshwaram Main Road. A Tata Indica car bearing Registration No. TN-07-BK-3574 was searched, wherein Krishnakumar (A-1), Sasikumar (accused No. 2/A-2) and Rajendran (accused No. 3/A-3) were found present. The following articles were seized from the said accused persons: 75 cyanide capsules; 60 grams of chemical GPS-4; 6 mobile phones; Indian currency amounting to Rs.46,200/-; Sri Lankan currency amounting toRs.19,300/-; vehicle documents; and passport and other documents.
13. Upon interrogation, it was found that the recovered articles and currency were intended to be illegally smuggled out to Sri Lanka for reviving the banned terrorist organisation LTTE. On the basis of the confession of Krishnakumar (A-1), the involvement of Subhaskaran (A-4), Sri (A-5) and Kumaran (A-6) in the criminal conspiracy came to light. Subhaskaran (A-4), was thereupon arrested on 25th July, 2015, from whose possession a route map, a list containing names of certain Sri Lankan leaders, a SIM card, a pen drive, a cell phone and a bag were recovered. In a follow-up search made at A-4’s house in Chennai on 26th July, 2015, a hard disk, a SIM card and other documents were seized.
Investigation completed as A5 and A6 are absconding accused
14. Q Branch completed the investigation by collecting the incriminating materials and chemical analysis reports, obtaining requisite sanction and examining a number of witnesses. Thereafter, a Final Report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, showing “Sri” (A-5) and Kumaran (A-6) as absconding accused. The learned trial Judge took the said Final Report on file as S.C. No. 7 of 2016.
Case was split up against the absconding accused
15. On an application in Cr.M.P. No. 467 of 2016, the case was split up by order dated 15th February,2016 against the absconding accused Nos. 5 and 6, and was re-numbered as S.C. No. 15 of 2016. Thereafter, trial was conducted in the said case against A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4. After conclusion of trial, they were convicted for the charged offences vide judgment dated 28th April, 2018.
Trial court in a separate trial has convicted A6 under UPAG and acquitted him on other charges
16. Kumaran (A-6) was arrested on 25th October,2016, and a separate trial was conducted against him in S.C. No. 15 of 2016, wherein learned trial Court vide order dated 30th September, 2021, convicted him only for offence punishable under section 10(a)(iv) of the UAP Act and acquitted him for the remaining charges.
17. S.C. No. 15 of 2016 was further split up against “Sri” (A-5) by order dated 18th January, 2018, and was re-numbered as S.C. No. 2 of 2018.
18. Thereafter, the Q Branch Officers executed anon-bailable warrant issued against the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5) by arresting the appellant on 16thDecember, 2021. After his arrest, Q Branch Officers conducted searches at the appellant’s rental house at Awaiyar Street, Subramaniapuram, Trichy on 4thJanuary, 2022 and 15th January, 2022, and recovered certain suspected objects and documents which were exhibited during the trial.
Trial court convicted the appellant for the charged offences
19. At the trial, the prosecution examined 39 witnesses and exhibited 102 documents to prove its case. The appellant was questioned under Section313 CrPC and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, he denied the same and claimed to be innocent. A specific plea was taken by the appellant that he was not the accused known by the name “Sri” (A-5) and that it was a case of mistaken identity. However, no evidence was led in defence. Trial Court vide judgment dated 18th July,2024 proceeded to convict the appellant for the charged offences and sentenced him as noted supra.
High Court dismissed the appeal
20. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred criminal appeal before the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 3rd April, 2025, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal by special leave.
Discussion
40. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have perused the material available on record. We have also sifted through the original record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
41. The moot question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant has been implicated in this case on the basis of mistaken identity.
Courts below have erred in holding the appellant as accused based on flawed identification
43. We are of the firm opinion that the Courts below erred in holding that the appellant-Ranjan is the same as the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5), and the conviction based on this flawed identification cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
Two-star witnesses are the only witnesses who have identified the appellant as accused
44. It is an admitted fact that the star prosecution witnesses, Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @Dharma Kumar (PW-9), are the only two witnesses, who have identified the appellant as the accused “Sri”, who allegedly handed over the cyanide capsules and poisonous substances to Krishnakumar (A-1) in the year 2015 for purported activities related to the revival of LTTE and for targeting those whom the accused believed to be responsible for the downfall of LTTE.
Since Investigating agency did not take action against the PW.8 and 9 despite these two were created documents themselves as Indian citizens casts serious doubt in the investigaiton
45. At the very outset, it is significant to note that both these witnesses were residing in India as refugees and had procured identity documents such as Aadhaar cards, PAN cards and Indian voter identity cards. This is borne out by the admissions made by Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9) themselves in cross-examination referred to supra. PW-8 admitted that he held a KVB bank account, a voter identity card, an Aadhaar card and a PAN card in his name and that all his family members also held Aadhaar cards, while simultaneously conceding that he had not been granted Indian citizenship till date. PW-9 similarly admitted to possessing a driving licence, a PAN card and an Aadhaar card in his name. It is wholly inconceivable as to why no action was taken by the investigating agency against them, despite material clearly indicating that they had created documents projecting themselves as Indian citizens, even though they did not possess such status. This aspect, in itself, casts a serious doubt on the manner in which the investigation has proceeded.
Conduct of witnessing A5 handing over poisonous substance to A1 they kept silent without informing the police about such a grave incident is unnatural and suspicious
46. Further, both these witnesses, not only consciously provided shelter to Krishnakumar (A-1), but even after allegedly witnessing the handing over of poisonous substances by the accused “Sri” (A-5) to Krishnakumar (A-1), they chose to remain completely silent. Not only did they fail to inform the police about such a grave and serious incident which forms the very backbone of the prosecution case, but they also continued to harbour and support Krishnakumar (A-1) for a prolonged period, thereby rendering their conduct highly unnatural and suspicious. As a matter of fact, there was ample material to prosecute these witnesses in this very case.
PW.8 & 9 in their 161 statements nor in their depositions have stated that the person referred to as “Sri” was also known by the name “Ranjan”
47. What assumes considerable significance is that neither of these two witnesses, in their statements recorded by the police nor in their depositions in the earlier trials (S.C. No. 7 of 2016 and S.C. No. 15 of2016), ever stated that the person referred to as “Sri” was also known by the name “Ranjan,” or that he was the present appellant residing in Trichy. This crucial assertion has surfaced only at a much later stage, thereby seriously denting the credibility of their version and creating substantial doubt regarding the identity of the appellant.
The identification of the appellant in that capacity was made only after his arrest and that too during police custody
48. A careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals glaring contradictions and material improvements in the testimonies of these witnesses. 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.
Substantive and material improvements made by the witnesses cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential
49. In this backdrop, the reliance placed by the High Court on Abuthagir (supra) is clearly misplaced. The principle laid down in Abuthagir(supra) pertains to delay in examination of witnesses during investigation and cannot be extended to a situation where there is a substantive and material improvement in testimony after earlier depositions were conspicuously silent on the very same aspect. Such improvements have debilitating effect on the credibility of the deposition made by the witnesses and cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential.
52. The evidence of Indu (PW-17) and Latha (PW-18), who were immediate neighbours residing in close proximity to the appellant, is on the same lines. Neither of these witnesses stated that they knew the appellant by the name “Sri”. On the contrary, their testimony reflects ordinary neighbourly interaction.PW-17 had assisted the appellant in obtaining SIM cards, and both PW-17 and PW-18 permitted the appellant to receive money sent by his wife from Switzerland through their bank accounts, as he did not have one owing to his refugee status. These circumstances are entirely innocuous and indicative of a normal domestic association, and do not, in any manner, support the prosecution’s case regarding identity or alleged involvement in unlawful activities.
Appellant has nothing to do with the name ‘Sri’ who is an absconding accused
53. In these circumstances, far from corroborating the prosecution case, the evidence of PW-17, PW-18, and PW-25 runs contrary to the prosecution’s theory and, in fact, clearly establishes that the appellant was known only as “Ranjan” and had nothing to do with the alleged absconding accused “Sri”.
IO admitted that only the name ‘sri’ appears in the earlier proceedings and not the name ‘ranjan’ creates a serious credibility of the prosecution’s case
54. We find from the record that there is a complete absence of reliable oral or documentary evidence linking the appellant to the accused “Sri” (A-5). The Investigating Officer (PW-29) himself admitted that only the name “Sri” appears in the earlier proceedings and cases, and that the name “Ranjan” does not find mention anywhere in the investigation records. Not a single official record, whether the FIR, Charge sheet, or any other police document, reflects the name “Ranjan” in conjunction with the absconding accused “Sri” prior to the appellant’s arrest. In the absence of any such evidence, the highly belated introduction of the name “Ranjan” as alias of “Sri” post-arrest constitutes a material improvement that seriously undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
55. In order to appreciate the importance of proper identification and the consequences of failure on the part of the prosecution to establish identity through reliable evidence, it would be apposite to refer to the observations of this Court in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka9, wherein the issue of doubtful identity in the absence of corroborative material was directly considered. This Court observed as follows: –
“………”
Identity of the accused disclosed by the witnesses after the arrest of the accused through belated and improved testimonies
56. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the position is even more damning to the prosecution case. Here too, 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). Much like in Vishwanatha (supra), 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.
57. Apart from the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution’s case is further weakened by the documented and lawful conduct of the appellant during the period he is alleged to have been absconding. While the prosecution seeks to connect the identity of the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5) with the appellant-40Ranjan on the basis of belated disclosures, the actual facts relating to the appellant’s life in Trichy present a completely different picture.
Lack of effort on the part of IO to trace and apprehend the absconding accused creates a grave doubt
58. The appellant was continuously and openly residing in Trichy and had duly registered himself as a refugee with the K.K. Nagar Police Station, Trichy, a fact also confirmed by appellant’s landlady (PW-25).It is the prosecution’s own case that the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5) was being sought to be arrested under a non-bailable warrant and was being actively searched for since the filing of the final report in S.C. No. 7 of 2016. Despite this, for more than five years, the investigating agency failed to trace or apprehend the said accused, even though, as per their own case, he was residing openly at a known and registered address under the alias name “Ranjan”. The total lack of effort on the part of the investigating officers to trace and apprehend the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5), or to establish any credible link between “Sri” and the appellant-Ranjan during this entire period, itself creates a grave doubt regarding the bona fides of the prosecution’s case.
A person who is an absconding accused would not dare to apply a to a foreign embassy for a visa and seek a police clearance residing under a false identity
59. The conduct of the appellant during the relevant period also merits consideration. Not only the appellant was residing openly at his known address, but he was simultaneously engaging with the Switzerland Embassy at New Delhi and local authorities for obtaining a police clearance certificate in order to travel to Switzerland to join his wife and son. The letter dated 14th July, 2021 issued by the Switzerland Embassy (Ex. P-58) is a contemporaneous official record establishing this fact. A person who is an absconding accused in a serious UAPA matter would not dare to apply to a foreign embassy for a visa and seek a police clearance certificate from the very police station in whose jurisdiction he admittedly resided under a false identity. This conduct is wholly inconsistent with the prosecution’s case and is entirely consistent with the conduct of an innocent person going about his routine life.60. Undeniably, the entire case of the prosecution on the question of identity rests solely on the oral testimony of Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @Dharma Kumar (PW-9), whose version, as already discussed above, is completely unreliable.
Conclusion
Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case
62. As a result of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case without there being any evidence to connect him with the crime.
Trial court and High Court judgments are set aside
63. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18th July, 2024passed by the trial Court and impugned judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 passed by the High Court are hereby set aside.
64. The appeal merits acceptance and is hereby allowed.
Appellant is acquitted
65. The appellant is acquitted of the charges and shall be released from the Special Camp, Trichy forthwith. He shall be at liberty to pursue his request for relocation/movement to Switzerland, in accordance with the law.
Reference
Judgments Involved (Procedural History of this Case and cited or relied)
- Trial Court Judgment: Judgment dated July 18, 2024, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in Sessions Case No. 02/2018 (which originally convicted the appellant).
- High Court Judgment: Judgment dated April 3, 2025, passed by the Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 698 of 2024 (which rejected the appeal and upheld the conviction).
- Supreme Court Judgment (Current Document): Judgment dated May 20, 2026, passed by the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 5141 of 2025, cited as 2026 INSC 516 (which set aside the lower court judgments and acquitted the appellant).
- Abuthagir v. State, (2009) 17 SCC 208: This judgment was originally relied upon by the High Court to justify accepting the belated disclosure of facts by a prosecution witness. The Supreme Court analyzed this citation and held that the High Court’s reliance on it was misplaced given the specific factual setting of the present case.
- Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 482: This precedent was cited and relied upon by the Supreme Court to establish the legal principles governing cases where the identity of an accused is doubtful. It was used to reinforce the evidentiary value of in-court identification without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), and the critical need for corroborative material when an accused’s identity is contested.
Acts and Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 120B
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act): Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), and 38(1)
- Poisons Act, 1919: Section 6
- Foreigners Act, 1946: Section 14(c)
- Passport Act, 1967: Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a)
Party
Sri vs the State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu, - Criminal Appeal No. 5141 of 2025 - 2026 INSC 516 - May 20, 2026 - Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi [3 judge bench].
