Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan Refugee of UAPA Charges, Finds Conviction Rested on False Identity
A three-judge bench set aside conviction under the UAPA and IPC, holding that the prosecution had falsely assigned the identity of an absconding accused to an innocent refugee.
The Supreme Court on 20 May 2026 acquitted a Sri Lankan national known as Ranjan, who had been convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and whose appeal was dismissed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, of serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Poisons Act, 1919, the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1967. The three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi found that the courts below had wrongly concluded that the appellant was the same person as the absconding accused “Sri” named in an LTTE revival conspiracy. The Court directed his immediate release from the Special Camp at Trichy and permitted him to pursue relocation to Switzerland, where his wife and son hold citizenship.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
The case originates in FIR No. 1 of 2015 registered at Q Branch Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu. The police alleged that a conspiracy was hatched in May 2015 at Arasan Bakery, KK Nagar, Trichy, to revive the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The central allegation was that an accused named “Sri” (A-5) handed over 75 cyanide capsules and 60 grams of chemical GPS-4 to Krishnakumar (A-1), with directions to carry them to Sri Lanka and deliver them to a person named “Kavi” for reorganising LTTE cadres.
On 20 July 2015, Q Branch police intercepted a vehicle at Utchipuli Bus Stand on the Ramanathapuram–Rameshwaram road. Krishnakumar (A-1), Sasikumar (A-2), and Rajendran (A-3) were found in the car. The seized articles included 75 cyanide capsules, 60 grams of GPS-4 chemical, six mobile phones, Indian and Sri Lankan currency, and various documents. On the basis of Krishnakumar's confession, the involvement of “Sri” (A-5) and Kumaran (A-6) came to light. Both were shown as absconding in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The case was split up against the absconding accused by order dated 15 February 2016 and re-numbered as S.C. No. 15 of 2016. A-1 through A-4 were tried and convicted on 28 April 2018. Kumaran (A-6) was arrested on 25 October 2016, tried separately, and convicted only for the offence under Section 10(a)(iv) of the UAP Act. The case against “Sri” (A-5) was further split and re-numbered as S.C. No. 2 of 2018.
On 16 December 2021, Q Branch officers executed a non-bailable warrant by arresting the appellant, a Sri Lankan national named Ranjan, son of Gunabalasingam, on the allegation that his actual name was “Sri” alias “Ranjan.” The appellant had arrived in India in 2009 on a valid Sri Lankan passport and tourist visa, registered as a non-camp refugee, and had been residing openly at Avvayar Street, Subramaniapuram, Trichy since 2012. His wife and son had left for Switzerland in 2014 and were granted citizenship there. At the time of his arrest, the appellant was awaiting a police clearance certificate to join them, following a visa letter from the Switzerland Embassy dated 14 July 2021.
The trial Court convicted the appellant on 18 July 2024 and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment for the principal charges under Section 120B of the IPC read with Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), and 38(1) of the UAP Act, along with lesser sentences for offences under the Poisons Act, Foreigners Act, and Passport Act. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed his appeal on 3 April 2025. He then approached the Supreme Court by special leave.
The Identity Question: What the Courts Below Held
The trial Court and the High Court rested the conviction on four main planks. First, two witnesses, Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar alias Dharmakumar (PW-9), deposed that when the appellant visited Krishnakumar's house in May 2015, Krishnakumar introduced him as “Sri alias Ranjan alias Rajan alias Pugazh alias Pugazhavan” and that the appellant handed over the cyanide capsules and GPS equipment to Krishnakumar. Second, the trial Court treated the evidence of the appellant's landlady (PW-25) and neighbours (PW-17 and PW-18) as corroborating the prosecution's case on identity and presence. Third, the High Court accepted the prosecution's explanation that “Sri” was an honorific conferred by an LTTE leader and that the appellant had adopted the name “Ranjan” to conceal his identity after the organisation was banned. Fourth, the High Court relied on Abuthagir v. State, (2009) 17 SCC 208, to hold that the belated disclosure of the name “Ranjan” by PW-8 and PW-9 in the present trial, when they had not mentioned it in earlier proceedings in S.C. No. 7 of 2016 and S.C. No. 15 of 2016 was not by itself a ground to discard their testimony.
Why the Supreme Court Disagreed
The Court identified the central question as whether the appellant had been implicated on the basis of mistaken identity. Its answer was unequivocal: the courts below had erred, and the conviction could not be sustained.
The Court's analysis began with the character of the two star witnesses. Both PW-8 and PW-9 were Sri Lankan nationals residing in India without Indian citizenship. PW-8 admitted to holding a KVB bank account, a voter identity card, an Aadhaar card, and a PAN card, while conceding he had not been granted citizenship. PW-9 similarly admitted to possessing a driving licence, a PAN card, and an Aadhaar card. The Court found it wholly inconceivable that the investigating agency took no action against them despite clear material showing they had procured documents projecting themselves as Indian citizens. This, the Court said, cast serious doubt on the manner in which the investigation had proceeded.
The Court then examined the conduct of both witnesses after the alleged incident. Both had consciously sheltered Krishnakumar (A-1) and, even after allegedly witnessing the handover of poisonous substances, chose to remain completely silent. They did not inform the police about an incident that formed the very backbone of the prosecution case, and continued to harbour Krishnakumar for a prolonged period. The Court found their conduct highly unnatural and suspicious, and observed that there was ample material to prosecute them in the very same case.
The most damaging finding concerned the timing of the identification. Neither PW-8 nor PW-9 had, in their police statements or in their depositions in the earlier trials of S.C. No. 7 of 2016 and S.C. No. 15 of 2016, ever stated that the person referred to as “Sri” was also known by the name “Ranjan.” This version was introduced for the first time in the present trial, after the appellant's arrest. The Investigating Officer (PW-29) candidly admitted in cross-examination that prior to the appellant's arrest in 2021, there was no contemporaneous documentary or oral evidence establishing that the appellant was known by or answered to the name “Sri.” He also admitted that no Test Identification Parade was conducted after the arrest, and that the identification was done only while the appellant was in police custody.
The Court drew on its earlier decision in Vishwanatha v. State for the proposition that where identity rests solely on belated and improved testimony, without contemporaneous description, documentary linkage, or independent corroboration, it is not safe to sustain a conviction. The Court found the present case “even more damning” than that precedent: there was no contemporaneous description, no documentary linkage, and no independent corroboration connecting the appellant with the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5).
The Court also examined the prosecution's reliance on call detail records. PW-17, the appellant's neighbour who had assisted him in procuring SIM cards, deposed that the cards were obtained only in 2020 and used until his arrest in December 2021. The Court accepted the submission that CDRs from 2020–2021 could have no nexus with an offence allegedly committed in 2015.
The Appellant's Conduct as Exculpatory Evidence
The Court placed considerable weight on the appellant's documented behaviour during the period he was alleged to have been absconding. He had been continuously and openly residing in Trichy, duly registered as a refugee with K.K. Nagar Police Station, a fact confirmed by his own landlady (PW-25), a prosecution witness. The prosecution's own case was that the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5) was being actively searched for under a non-bailable warrant 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 accused, even though, on the prosecution's own case, he was residing openly at a known and registered address under the alias “Ranjan.” The Court found this total lack of effort itself created a grave doubt about the bona fides of the prosecution's case.
The Switzerland Embassy letter dated 14 July 2021 (Ex. P-58) was treated as a contemporaneous official record of particular significance. The Court reasoned that 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. This conduct, the Court held, was wholly inconsistent with the prosecution's case and entirely consistent with the conduct of an innocent person going about his routine life.
The Court's conclusion on the overall picture was direct: “it is clearly a case where the appellant has been falsely implicated by being assigned the identity of another person.” It found that PW-8 and PW-9, who had themselves brought relatives from Sri Lanka under false identities and were under the scrutiny of the investigating agency, were prevailed upon to implicate the appellant as the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5) in order to give closure to the case. The investigating agency had placed no material on record to demonstrate the steps taken to locate, apprehend, and bring the actual absconding accused to trial.
Outcome
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18 July 2024 passed by the trial Court and the impugned judgment dated 3 April 2025 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
The appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed that he be released from the Special Camp at Trichy forthwith. It further held that he shall be at liberty to pursue his request for relocation to Switzerland in accordance with law.