The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of a Sri Lankan national, holding that the prosecution failed to establish his identity as an absconding accused in a 2015 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case. A three-judge Bench of the apex court, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi, ruled that the appellant, identified in his passport as Ranjan, had been falsely implicated on the basis of a mistaken identity. The Court ordered his immediate release from the Special Camp in Trichy, Tamil Nadu, granting him the liberty to pursue relocation to Switzerland.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Ranjan, is a Sri Lankan national who arrived legally in India in 2009 along with his wife, Archana, and son, Pavalan, holding a valid passport and tourist visa. Prior to departure, he had received clearance from Sri Lankan law enforcement confirming he had no criminal antecedents. Upon arrival, the family registered as non-camp refugees with the Shankar Nagar Police Station in Chennai, and later, in 2012, re-registered with the K.K. Nagar Police Station in Trichy, Tamil Nadu.
In 2014, the appellant’s wife and son were granted visas to Switzerland, where they sought asylum and were subsequently granted citizenship. The appellant also sought a Swiss visa to join them, which was granted by the Switzerland Embassy at New Delhi on July 14, 2021, subject to obtaining a police clearance certificate in Tamil Nadu.
While waiting for this clearance, the appellant was arrested on December 16, 2021, by the Q Branch Officers of Ramanathapuram. The police claimed his actual name was “Sri alias Ranjan” and that he was the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5) in FIR Crime No. 1/2015, registered at the Q Branch Police Station.
The FIR, registered in May 2015, alleged a conspiracy to rejuvenate the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) organization. It was alleged that “Sri” (A-5) had handed over 75 cyanide capsules and 60 grams of chemical GPS-4 (used for making cyanide) to Krishnakumar (A-1) in Trichy, with instructions to smuggle them to Sri Lanka to eliminate rival Tamil leaders and re-organize LTTE cadres. A-1 and other co-accused were arrested in July 2015 and subsequently tried and convicted in 2018. The trial against the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5) was split up and re-numbered as S.C. No. 2 of 2018.
Following the appellant’s arrest in 2021, he was tried before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. Despite maintaining that he had no connection to “Sri”, the trial court convicted him on July 18, 2024, for offences under Section 120B of the IPC, Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), and 38(1) of the UAPA, Section 6 of the Poisons Act, Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, and Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Passport Act. He was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court confirmed his conviction on April 3, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that this was a case of false implication by assigning the identity of a different individual to the appellant. He contended that the appellant was never known as “Sri” and that his passport and visa recorded his actual name as “Ranjan”. The counsel pointed out that the appellant had continuously resided at a known, registered address in Trichy, which was well within the knowledge of the authorities.
The defense heavily attacked the credibility of the primary prosecution witnesses, Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9), noting that they were Sri Lankan citizens living illegally in India on fabricated documents. He highlighted that the theory of the appellant being known as “Sri” alias “Ranjan” was introduced for the first time during the current trial, and that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted upon his arrest. Furthermore, the landlady (PW-25) and neighbours (PW-17 and PW-18) only knew him as “Ranjan” and not “Sri”.
Respondent’s Submissions
Conversely, the learned counsel representing the State of Tamil Nadu opposed the appeal, arguing that the appellant was directly involved in activities aimed at reviving the banned LTTE. He submitted that the appellant had conspired with the convicted accused (A-1) and provided him with cyanide capsules and chemicals.
The State contended that any discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9 were minor, trivial, and natural given the seven-year delay before they were examined in court. The respondent also argued that since the appellant had already served a substantial portion of his sentence, the appeal had largely lost its efficacy.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the trial records and testimonies to determine “whether the appellant has been implicated in this case on the basis of mistaken identity.”
The judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta on behalf of the Bench, concluded that the lower courts erred, stating:
“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.”
The Court highlighted several critical flaws in the prosecution’s case:
Unreliability of Key Witnesses
The Court noted that the star witnesses, PW-8 and PW-9, were residing in India as refugees but had illegally procured Indian Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, and voter IDs. The Court expressed serious doubt over the investigation, observing that no action was taken against them for creating false documents.
Furthermore, the Court found their conduct highly unnatural and suspicious. Both witnesses had provided shelter to A-1 and allegedly witnessed him receiving poisonous substances from “Sri” in May 2015, yet they remained completely silent and failed to inform the police.
Belated Introduction of the Name “Ranjan”
The Court found it highly significant that neither PW-8 nor PW-9 had ever mentioned the name “Ranjan” in their statements to the police or in their depositions during the earlier trials of the other co-accused. Justice Mehta observed:
“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 Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on Abuthagir v. State (2009) 17 SCC 208, clarifying that the principles of that case pertain to delays in examining witnesses during investigation, which cannot be extended to cover cases of substantive and material improvements where previous depositions were conspicuously silent.
Contradictory Neighbor and Landlady Testimony
The Court rejected the lower courts’ finding that the landlady and neighbours corroborated the appellant’s identity as “Sri”.
The landlady (PW-25) explicitly stated in her cross-examination that she knew the appellant only as “Ranjan” and that no one named “Sri” lived in her apartment. Neighbours PW-17 and PW-18 similarly testified that they only knew him as “Ranjan” and had engaged in ordinary, innocent neighbourly interactions, such as helping him receive money from his wife in Switzerland.
Absence of Identification Material and Failure of TIP
The Investigating Officer (PW-29) admitted that the name “Ranjan” did not appear in any of the official investigation records, FIRs, or chargesheets prior to the appellant’s arrest in 2021.
Applying the principles laid down in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka (2024 INSC 482) regarding doubtful identity in the absence of a TIP, the Court observed that there was “no contemporaneous description, no documentary linkage, and no independent corroboration” connecting the appellant to the absconding accused “Sri”.
Innocent Conduct of the Appellant
The Court noted that while the police claimed the accused “Sri” was actively evading arrest under a warrant since 2016, the appellant was living openly at a registered address in Trichy.
Moreover, the appellant was actively engaging with the Swiss Embassy and local police to secure a clearance certificate for his visa. The Court remarked:
“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.”
The Court strongly criticized the investigating agency’s actions, finding that PW-8 and PW-9, who were themselves under police scrutiny, were likely utilized to secure a quick closure:
“Prima facie, it appears that Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9), who had themselves brought their relatives from Sri Lanka under false identities and were under the scrutiny of the investigating agency, were, by way of a bargain, prevailed upon to implicate the appellant in the present case as the absconding accused ‘Sri’ (A-5), just in order to give a closure to the case.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction dated July 18, 2024, passed by the Trial Court, as well as the High Court’s judgment dated April 3, 2025.
Acquitting the appellant of all charges, the Court ordered:
“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.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Ranjan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5141 of 2025 (Arising out of 2026 INSC 516)
- Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi
- Date: May 20, 2026
