Sri vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 516
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 5141 OF 2025
SRI ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR
OF POLICE, Q BRANCH,
RAMANATHAPURAM,
TAMIL NADU …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
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
1
Code, 1860 , Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of
2
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ,
Signature Not Verified
1
For short, “IPC”
2
For short “UAP Act”
Digitally signed by
SHIPRA NARANG
Date: 2026.05.20
17:14:59 IST
Reason:
1
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
3
Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in Sessions Case
No. 02/2018. Vide judgment of conviction and order
th
of sentence dated 18 July, 2024, the appellant was
convicted and sentenced as below: -
Charged
S. No.
Default
Sentence
Offence Sentence
Rigorous
Imprisonment
for 5 (Five)
years and to
pay a fine of
Rs. 10,000/-
15 months
Simple
Imprisonment
Section
120B of the
IPC
1.
Section
120(B) IPC
r/w Sections
10(a)(i) and
10(a)(iv) and
38(1) of the
UAP Act
Rigorous
Imprisonment
for 5 (Five)
years and to
pay a fine of
Rs. 10,000/-
15 months
Simple
Imprisonment
2.
Rigorous
Imprisonment
for 3 (Three)
months and
to pay a fine
of Rs. 1,000/-
1 month
Simple
Imprisonment
Section 6 of
the Poisons
Act, 1919
3.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
2
Charged
S. No.
Default
Sentence
Offence Sentence
Section
120B IPC
r/w Section
14(c) of the
Foreigners
Act, 1946
Rigorous
Imprisonment
for 3 (Three)
years and to
pay a fine of
Rs. 1,000/-
1 year Simple
Imprisonment
4.
Section
120B IPC
r/w Section
3 r/w
Section
12(1)(a) of
the Passport
Act, 1967
Rigorous
Imprisonment
for 2 (Two)
years and to
pay a fine of
Rs. 1,000/-
8 months
Simple
Imprisonment
5.
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
4 rd
Madras High Court vide judgment dated 3 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.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”
3
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 Sri
Lanka and a valid tourist visa granted by the
Government of India. Before departing from Sri
Lanka, the appellant received clearance from the Sri
Lankan law enforcement authorities confirming that
he did not have any criminal antecedents. The name
of the appellant as recorded in the passport is
Ranjan.
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 themselves
with the K.K. Nagar Police Station at Trichy, Tamil
Nadu. The appellant stayed in Trichy for more than a
decade without any criminal conduct or complaint
against his name.
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
4
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
th
Embassy at New Delhi vide letter dated 14 July,
2021, subject to police clearance in Tamil Nadu,
India.
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
th
Ramanathapuram on 16 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.
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,
5
the appellant has placed reliance on his passport and
various other documents.
10. As per allegations set out in FIR No. 1/2015
registered 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
5
Tigers of Tamil Eelam organisation. The said
conspiracy was allegedly hatched at Arasan Bakery,
KK Nagar, Trichy.
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 hand
over the same to one “Kavi”, a Sri Lankan national,
so as to re-organise the LTTE cadres and to eliminate
rival Tamil leaders.
5
For short “LTTE”
6
12. Acting on the said tip off, the Q Branch police
th
conducted a vehicle search on 20 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 to
Rs.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
th
on 25 July, 2015, from whose possession a route
map, a list containing names of certain Sri Lankan
7
leaders, a SIM card, a pen drive, a cell phone and a
bag were recovered. In a follow-up search made at A-
th
4’s house in Chennai on 26 July, 2015, a hard disk,
a SIM card and other documents were seized.
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
6
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.
15. On an application in Cr.M.P. No. 467 of 2016,
th
the case was split up by order dated 15 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
th
vide judgment dated 28 April, 2018.
6
For short “CrPC”
8
th
16. Kumaran (A-6) was arrested on 25 October,
2016, and a separate trial was conducted against him
in S.C. No. 15 of 2016, wherein learned trial Court
th
vide order dated 30 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
th
“Sri” (A-5) by order dated 18 January, 2018, and
was re-numbered as S.C. No. 2 of 2018.
18. Thereafter, the Q Branch Officers executed a
non-bailable warrant issued against the absconding
th
accused “Sri” (A-5) by arresting the appellant on 16
December, 2021. After his arrest, Q Branch Officers
conducted searches at the appellant’s rental house at
th
Awaiyar Street, Subramaniapuram, Trichy on 4
th
January, 2022 and 15 January, 2022, and
recovered certain suspected objects and documents
which were exhibited during the trial.
19. At the trial, the prosecution examined 39
witnesses and exhibited 102 documents to prove its
case. The appellant was questioned under Section
313 CrPC and upon being confronted with the
circumstances appearing against him in the
9
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
th
defence. Trial Court vide judgment dated 18 July,
2024 proceeded to convict the appellant for the
charged offences and sentenced him as noted supra .
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
rd
dated 3 April, 2025, which is subject matter of
challenge in this appeal by special leave.
21. It is pertinent to note that, after hearing the
counsel for the parties and considering that the
appellant had undergone incarceration for a period
short of one year of total sentence of 5 years, this
st
Court vide order dated 1 December, 2025,
suspended the sentence and directed his release on
bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial
Court. Subsequently, when the appellant approached
the trial court for bail, the Court, order dated
vide
th
16 December 2025, granted bail with the stipulation
10
that he be lodged in the Special Camp at Trichy in
th
terms of G.O. (ID) No. 649 dated 11 December 2025
issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The
appellant has assailed the said G.O. by bringing the
same on record. However, we have heard the final
arguments on the appeal itself.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:
22. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
advanced the following submissions.
23. That it is a case of false implication by assigning
identity of a different individual upon the appellant.
24. That the appellant was never known by the
name “Sri”, and there is no evidence to support the
prosecution theory that the appellant answered to
the name “Sri” as an alias in addition to his actual
name “Ranjan”, as duly recorded in his passport, visa
and other undisputed contemporaneous documents.
It was submitted that the prosecution has come out
with a categorical plea that pursuant to initial
investigation, it came to light that the suspect
identified as “Sri” being the prime accused in Crime
No. 1/2015 had gone absconding. Learned counsel
urged that the fact remains, that the appellant had
all along continued to reside at his known address,
11
i.e ., Avvayar Street, Subramaniapuram, Trichy,
Tamil Nadu, which was well within the knowledge of
the authorities. The appellant and his family
members were registered initially with P.S. Shankar
Nagar, Chennai and later with P.S. K.K. Nagar,
Trichy. Not only this, but the appellant was also
continuously and actively pursuing the grant of a
Swiss visa in order to travel to Switzerland to join his
wife and child who had already been granted asylum
and citizenship in that country.
25. That the witnesses on whose evidence the
prosecution heavily relied, namely Balachandran
(PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9), were
themselves Sri Lankan citizens illegally staying in
India on the basis of fabricated documents. It was
urged that no reliance could have been placed on the
testimony of such witnesses, who admitted in their
testimony that they were staying in India on the
strength of forged documents. It was further urged
that the theory of the appellant being known as “Sri”
alias “Ranjan” was, for the first time, introduced
during the evidence of Mr. Balachandran (PW-8)
when he was examined in S.C. No. 2/2018.
12
26. He referred to the excerpts from the evidence of
Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar
(PW-9) to urge that the evidence of the said witnesses
is totally unreliable, and their own conduct is so
suspicious that they ought to have been prosecuted
under the relevant provisions of the Foreigners Act,
1946 and the Passport Act, 1967.
27. Relevant excerpts from the deposition of
Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar
(PW-9) referred by learned counsel are extracted
hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“ Deposition of Mr. Balachandran (PW-8)
Examination-in-chief
I am working as a driver. I know the accused Sri
alias Ranjan alias Rajan alias Pugazh alias
Pugazhavan. He is also from Sri Lanka. I came to
India from Sri Lanka in 1990 as a refugee and later
registered as an external refugee and resided in
Trichy, and sold fancy products for my
livelihood.….
I got acquainted with the accused Krishnakumar
alias Kanthan through the above Dharmakumar.
Since he also requested Dharmakumar for a house
for rent, Dharmakumar brought him to my house
and let him stay in my house. Krishnakumar and I
would share and pay the rent. When Krishnakumar
and I stayed together in my house, we used to talk
at night. While talking like that, Krishnakumar
would tell me about the L.T.T.E. and his work in it.
He also said that lie was making arrangements to
13
revive the movement with his L.T.T.E. friends, Sri
alias Ranjan alias Rajan and Subashkaran alias
Prabha, Murugan alias Kumaran, and Shiva….
Krishnakumar told me and Dharmakumar that the
name of the person who came was Sri and that his
aliases were Ranjan, Rajan, Pugazh, Pugazhavan,
and that he also worked for the L.T.T.E. movement.
Then they were both talking about reviving the
movement. At that time, Sri alias Ranjan took out
cyanide vials, cyanide powder packet, GPS Devices,
and cellphones from the bag he had brought and
handed them over to Krishnakumar. The present
accused left after telling him to take those items to
Sri Lanka and give them to a person named Kavi…..
On the morning of 05.01.2022, the investigating
officer of this case called me, and I came to Arasan
Bakery in Trichy at 10:30 a.m. There, in front of
Arasan Bakery, they showed me the present
accused Sri alias Ranjan and started investigating
me. I informed him the fact that one day in May
2015, when the witness Dharmakumar, the
accused krishnakumar, and I were talking at home,
the present accused came to ray house and handed
over the above-mentioned case properties to the
accused Krishnakumar….
Cross-Examination
I am a witness in all 3 cases related to the case
under crime number 1/2015 related to this case.
The police recorded the statement I gave in this
crime number. It is true that in my statement,
I have stated that I came to India from Sri Lanka
with my family in 1990 by an illegal boat. It is
true that as a family, we stayed in Tirunelveli,
and I am still living in Tirunelveli. It is true that
I have rented a house at door number 5, Ranga
Nagar first main road, K.K. Nagar in Trichy and
14
I am the only one staying there. PW-1
Dharmakumar was the one who rented a house
for me. Dharmakumar and I are already
acquainted in Sri Lanka……
I have also obtained an Indian voter identity
card. I have an account in KVB Bank in my
name. I have an Aadhar card and a PAN card in
my name. My entire family has Aadhar cards. I
have not obtained Indian citizenship till date….
When Krishnakumar was staying with me, he
would talk to me about the L.T.T.E. activities. He
even invited me to join the movement. I refused, but
I did not give any information about it to the police.
It is true that helping people from a banned
movement is a crime. It is false to state that I am
also a criminal in this case because I gave shelter
to the accused Krishnakumar and helped him. It is
false to state that I am giving false testimony as
requested because the police threatened to include
me as an accused in this case……
I have stated during the investigation that the case
properties given to Krishnakumar were given in
May 2015 by Sri. If stated that Krishnakumar was
arrested on 27.02.2015 and therefore the case
properties were in Krishnakumar’s possession for
about 2 months, I am not aware of that. I know that
those case properties are going to be taken to Sri
Lanka. But it is true that I did not inform the police
about it……
It is true that in the previous cases, I had
mentioned only the name Sri in the statement
obtained from me by the police. In the
statement that was given by me to the police. I
have mentioned the names Sri alias Ranjan alias
Rajan alias Pugazh, Pugazhavan, after arresting
the accused. I identified the present accused as
15
Sri after him being arrested by the police. It is
false to state that if the police had arrested a
different person and shown him to me, I would
have still identified him as Sri. The Q Branch
police did not conduct any identification
parade…..
It is true that there were no documents about
Sri in the case properties seized from
Krishnakumar. It Is true that, similarly, there
were no documents about Ranjan. I have not
given a statement anywhere that Krishnakumar
told me the name Ranjan. It is false to state that
the present accused Ranjan has been living in
Trichy from 2012 to 2021, and if in fact he was
Sri, I would have identified him earlier……
It is false to state that I am giving false testimony
under threat from the police, fearing that they
would register a case against me.”
“ Deposition of Mr. Kumar alias Dharmakumar
(PW-9)
Examination-in-chief
I know the present accused, Sri alias Ranjan alias
Pugazh alias Pughazhavan. He is also Sri Lankan.
I came to India from Sri Lanka in 2009 on a
passport. After coming to India, after registering as
an external refugee, I am residing in Trichy with my
family….
When I was in Sri Lanka, I worked for the L.T.T.E.
movement….
When we all met, the accused Krishnakumar would
often talk about the L.T.T.E. movement. One day,
when Krishnakumar was talking to me, he said
that the present accused, Murugan alias Kumaran
and Prabha alias Subashkaran, had gathered in
Trichy and discussed attacking the traitors who
16
were responsible for destroying the L.T.T.E.
movement, and that I should cooperate with them.
I said that I was not interested in that. I also said
that they should not take any coordination
measures. Then, I don't remember the date, but
one morning in the first week of May 2015, I went
to the house where Krishnakumar was staying. At
that time, when I, Krishnakumar, and
Balachandran were talking, a friend of
Krishnakumar came there. At that time,
Krishnakumar introduced the person as Sri
alias Ranjan alias Rajan alias Pugazhavan, and
told us that he had worked in the L.T.T.E.
movement. They were both discussing reviving
the movement. At that time, the present
accused, Sri alias Ranjan, took the cyanide
bottles, cyanide packet, GPS equipment, and
cell phones that he had brought with him and
handed them over to Krishnakumar. The
present accused left after telling him to take all
those items to Sri Lanka and hand them over to
Kavi from the movement. I came to know that on
21.07.2015, the Inspector of the Trichy Q Branch
informed that my friend Krishnakumar alias
Kanthan, was arrested in Ramanathapuram
district while he was planning to go to Sri Lanka
with the above-mentioned case properties and was
traveling in a car and a case was registered in
Ramanathapmam and therefore the house where
Krishnakumar was staying should be searched and
after conducting a search in the presence of
witnesses, some documents including a laptop
were seized. I was questioned in this regard on
23.07.2015 by the Additional Superintendent of
Police of the Q Branch. Then, on 05.01.2022.
being summoned by the investigating officer of
17
this case, I came to Arasan Bakery in Trichy at
10:30 a.m. The present accused was with the
police at Arasan Bakery. The police questioned
me by showing the present accused. Then I told
him that in the first week of May 2015, the
present accused had come to Krishnakumar’s
house and handed over the above-mentioned
case properties and also identified him as Sri.
Cross-Examination
I am from Sri Lanka. My mother and two sisters are
in France. It is true that my brother
Chandrakumar and I received weapons training
in the L.T.TE. movement during 1994-1996. It
is true that between 1996 and 1998, my brother
and I participated along with L.T.T.E. in the
fight against Sri Lanka in Mullaitheevu,
Kilinochchi, and Mullivaikkal…..
The three of us would meet often and chat. It is true
that in the statement given by me to the police, I
have stated that I have refused Krishnakumar’s
request to revive the L.T.T.E. movement. It is true
that I did not inform the police about it. I have
a driving License, PAN card, and Aadhaar card
in my name. I am working as a water can dealer
and I am not paying any GST. It is false to state
that I am conducting business here without
obtaining Indian citizenship, obtaining
documents illegally, and doing business without
paying GST. I did not give the above details in
the police statement. It is true that on
16.06.2015, my younger brother Chandrakumar
came to my house under the name of
Raghupathi Shankar using a fake passport. The
police told me that it was wrong to give shelter
to someone who came with a fake passport. It is
18
true that my younger brother was staying with
me during the period when a person named Sri
handed over the case properties to
Krishnakumar at Balachandran's house. It is
false to state that I am introducing a new person
named Sri just to hide my brother’s
involvement in the L.T.T.E…..
It is true that I did not inform the police even
though I knew that the case properties were
given to Krishnakumar in May 2015 and that
Krishnakumar were in possession of the items.
It is true that in the previous case, SC No.
15/2016., when I was testifying as PW-8, I had
testified that I did not see what was in the bag
given by the person named Sri. It is true that in
the other 2 cases where I have testified, I had
mentioned only one name, Sri, and did not
mention the name Ranjan anywhere. It is true
that I have mentioned Ranjan, Rajan, Pugazh,
and Pugazhavan only in this case. It is true that
I identified the present accused in that way
after he was arrested by the police. It is false to
state that before the present accused was
arrested, neither I nor Balachandran informed
the police that Ranjan was residing in
Tiruchirappalli. It is false to state that if the
police had shown me some other person, I would
have identified him as Sri out of fear of the
police….
It is true that I did not give a confession
statement that the first accused Krishnakumar
mentioned the name Ranjan to me…..
It is false to state that my brother and I are involved
in this case crime number 1/2015, and therefore
my statements are not acceptable. It is not false to
state that I am giving evidence in support of this
19
case under threat from the police because I was in
the L.T.T.E., and my brother came to India on a
fake passport, and since I know about the illegal
transfer of the assets to Krishnakumar and
because I knew that they were going to be taken to
Sri Lanka.”
(Emphasis supplied)
28. From the aforesaid excerpts, learned counsel
highlighted the following infirmities, contradictions
and suspicious features in the evidence of both the
witnesses:
i. The witnesses admitted that they were
residing in India and had procured various
identity document including Aadhar card,
Pan card, etc., despite not having lawful
citizenship status.
ii. They were doing business in India and had
continuously provided refuge/shelter to
Krishnakumar (A-1), the main accused who
was arrested in this case in 2015.
iii. Even though, they saw Krishnakumar (A-1)
indulging in talks about the revival of LTTE
movement in their own presence, they did not
inform the police about it.
iv. Significantly, none of the witnesses in
their statements to the police or in their
20
previous depositions in earlier trials of
other accused stated that the accused
“Sri” (A-5) whom they were referring to
was also known by the name “Ranjan” and
that this fact has been told to them by
Krishnakumar (A-1). This version has been
introduced for the first time in the present
trial.
v. The identification of the accused was done
only while he was in police custody and no
7
Test Identification Parade was held.
29. Learned counsel further referred to the evidence
of the Investigating Officer, Mr. Pandian (PW-29) and
particularly the following excerpts therefrom: -
“Examination-in-chief
On 16.12.2021 at 11:00 am, when I was in our
branch office, as per the order of the head office,
the arrest warrant of the accused Sri was executed
by the Trichy Branch Inspector Mr. Victor and Sub-
Inspector Feroz Khan who was assisted him, came
to my office and produced the accused Sri of this
case along with a separate report…..
At 11.30 am, the accused Sri, who was produced
before me by executing the arrest warrant, was
interrogated and he voluntarily came forward
without any threat or inducement and stated that
1 was in the second phase of security detail of the
7
For short, “TIP”.
21
leader Prabhakaran of the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam and that citing the excellence of my
work, he gave me the name Sri in the movement.
My real name is Ranjan, and I surrendered to the
Sri Lankan army in the 2009 battle between the
LTTE and the Sri Lankan army in Mullivaikkal and
was released in 2012, and came to Trichy and
stayed, and at that time, as per the request of
Gugan, who had worked with me and is currently
in Switzerland, to reunite the LTTE and fight
against the Sri Lankan army and establishing
Tamil Eelam.
Cross-Examination
I got to know about the previous investigation of
this case by perusing the file……
If asked whether an identification parade since
PW8, 9 has identified Rajan as Sri,
identification parade will only be conducted
through Court only if the witness says that it
was a stranger who can be identified when seen.
It is false to state that the above PW8 and 9 did
not identify the accused……
It is true that only the name Sri has been
mentioned in the previous cases and
investigations and Ranjan’s name has not been
mentioned. If the name Ranjan or Sri was not
mentioned in the documents marked from Ex.P-
6 to 75 through PW19 filed in this case
regarding Ranjan, the explanation is that Sri is
a name given to him in the LTTE movement to
honour him, and that name will only be known
to his close relatives, friends and the members
of the movement…..
Ex. P-64 shows that the name of Ranjan has
been registered at the Shankar Nagar Police
Station in Chennai. Also, it is true that he has
22
removed his registration at the Shankar Nagar
police station in Ex. P-65 and 66 and registered
his name as a refugee at the police station in
K.K. Nagar, Trichy. It is true that none of my
previous officers arrested Ranjan by mentioning
his name as Sri. It is true that Ranjan has not
obtained any identity card in his name issued
by the Indian government to identify himself as
an Indian citizen. But he has obtained an Indian
driving license. It is true that in the documents
filed by me from Ex.P-24 to 60, apart from the
identity card issued in Sri Lanka, the name
Ranjan, his signature, the address of Ranjan
were not mentioned……
It is true that Ranjan’s name or signature is not
mentioned anywhere in the documents claimed
to have been written by him, but it was brought
up to my knowledge during my investigation
that since those documents are confidential,
they would not usually sign them. It is false to
state that if this document was actually written
by Ranjan in his own handwriting, we would
have sent it to a handwriting expert and got it
verified, and since it was not written by Ranjan,
no such effort was taken. It is true that Ranjan’s
wife and son are living in Switzerland, and a
letter was sent from the Swiss Embassy on
14.07.2021 asking Ranjan to come and live with
his family, and the same has been filed in this
case as Ex-P-58. It is false to state that Ranjan
is living alone due to the delay in the procedure
of issuing visa in his name, and therefore we
have included him as an accused in this
case…..”
(Emphasis Supplied)
23
30. Learned counsel referred to the above excerpts
to contend that the I.O. has candidly admitted that,
prior to the arrest of the appellant in the year 2021,
there existed no contemporaneous documentary or
oral evidence to establish that the appellant was
known by or answered to the name “Sri” as an alias
of “Ranjan”. Further, no TIP was conducted after the
appellant’s arrest, despite the fact that none of the
witnesses examined during investigation had
identified “Ranjan” as being the alias of “Sri”.
31. On this basis, learned counsel urged that the
involvement of the appellant in this case is totally
unjustified, based purely on conjectures and
surmises and the appellant has been made to
undergo imprisonment of nearly four years without
there being any evidence to connect him with the
crime.
32. Learned counsel contended that the reliance
placed by the prosecution on call detail records
(CDRs) is wholly misplaced. It was pointed out that
the neighbour of appellant, Indu (PW-17), who
assisted the appellant in procuring SIM cards, has
categorically deposed that the said SIM cards were
obtained only in the year 2020 and were used by the
24
appellant during the period 2020-2021, i.e. , until his
arrest. In such circumstances, the said CDRs cannot
have any nexus with an offence allegedly committed
in the year 2015 and are, therefore, wholly irrelevant
to the prosecution case.
33. Learned counsel further contended that the
appellant had been granted the status of a Non-Camp
Refugee, along with his wife and minor child, upon
their arrival in India in the year 2009 by the
Government of India and the State of Tamil Nadu,
and that the said status continues to subsist.
Consequently, there was no requirement for the
appellant to renew his passport or extend the validity
of his visa. It was thus urged that the invocation of
the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and the
Foreigners Act, 1946 against the appellant is wholly
misconceived and unsustainable in law.
34. He further submitted, in the present case, even
though the appellant has served out a substantial
part of the sentence awarded by the trial Court and
st
even after order dated 1 December, 2025 passed by
this Court directing his release on bail, he is still not
being released and continues to be illegally detained
at a Special Camp in Trichy.
25
35. Learned counsel, thus, urged that the appellant
deserves to be honorably acquitted and further
direction ought to be given that he should be
permitted to pursue his case for relocation to
Switzerland in terms of the visa granted to him, the
process of which stood halted on account of his false
implication in the present case.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
36. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant. He urged that the appellant was clearly
found involved in activities aimed at revival of the
banned organisation LTTE.
37. He submitted that the appellant had conspired
with the convicted accused Krishnakumar (A-1) and
had provided him with cyanide capsules and other
poisonous chemicals to be carried to Sri Lanka so
that the persons who were responsible for the defeat
of LTTE could be eliminated.
38. He urged that the discrepancies sought to be
highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are
trivial in nature, immaterial, and such as are bound
26
to occur in the testimony of truthful witnesses,
looking to the long interval of time after which they
were examined.
39. Learned counsel submitted that, since the
testimonies of the witnesses Balachandran (PW-8)
and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9) were recorded
after a delay of almost seven years, such
discrepancies are naturally bound to occur. He,
therefore, urged that the appellant does not deserve
any indulgence by this Court. He further submitted
that the since appellant has already served out
substantial portion of the sentence awarded by the
trial Court, the present appeal itself has, to a large
extent, lost its efficacy.
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.
27
42. The key reasons assigned by the trial Court and
the High Court to hold that the absconding accused
“Sri” (A-5) and the appellant, “Ranjan” were one and
the same are noted hereinbelow: -
i. Both, Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @
Dharma Kumar (PW-9) deposed that when the
appellant visited Krishnakumar’s (A-1) house
in May 2015, A-1 introduced him as “Sri” alias
“Ranjan” alias “Rajan” alias “Pugazh” alias
“Pugazhavan” and stated that he had worked
in the LTTE movement. PW-8 further deposed
that the accused handed over cyanide bottles,
a cyanide packet, and GPS equipment to
Krishnakumar (A-1) and directed him to carry
the same to Sri Lanka and hand them over to
“Kavi,” which was corroborated by PW-9 in
material particulars. On this basis, the trial
Court concluded that “Ranjan” and “Sri”
referred to one and the same person, i.e ., the
present appellant.
ii. Treated evidence of the appellant’s landlady,
Rasamalar (PW-25), and his neighbours, Indu
(PW-17) and Latha (PW-18) as corroborative of
the prosecution’s case regarding the identity
28
and presence of the appellant at the relevant
address, thereby lending support to the
prosecution version that the appellant was
identifiable to persons in his vicinity as the
individual named in the FIR.
iii. The High Court accepted the prosecution’s
explanation that “Sri” was not a conventional
name but an honorific conferred upon the
appellant by an LTTE leader in recognition of
his services. It was further noted that the
appellant’s photograph was affixed on his Sri
Lankan passport (P.M.O. 61) bearing the
name “Ranjan,” which, according to the
courts, established his identity. On this basis,
the High Court concluded that the appellant,
having been actively associated with LTTE,
had adopted the name “Ranjan” to conceal his
identity after the organisation was banned
and disbanded.
iv. With regard to contention of the defence that
the name “Ranjan” did not appear in the
earlier depositions of PW-8 and PW-9 in S.C.
No. 7 of 2016 and S.C. No. 15 of 2016, the
High Court rejected the said contention by
29
relying on the decision of this Court in
8
Abuthagir v. State , holding that mere
belated disclosure of a particular fact by a
witness is not, by itself, a ground to discard
such testimony, provided the evidence is
otherwise cogent and credible.
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.
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.
8
(2009) 17 SCC 208.
30
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.
46. Further, both these witnesses, not only
consciously provided shelter to Krishnakumar (A-1),
31
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.
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 of
2016), 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.
48. A careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals glaring
contradictions and material improvements in the
32
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.
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.
50. The reliance placed by the Courts below on the
evidence of appellant’s landlady, Rasamalar (PW-25)
33
and his neighbours Indu (PW-17) and Latha (PW-18)
is equally misconceived and is based on a clear
misreading of their depositions. While the Courts
below have treated these witnesses as corroborating
the prosecution case on identity, a careful and
holistic reading of their evidence reveals quite the
contrary, each of them, in fact, undermines the very
foundation of the prosecution’s case that the
appellant was known as “Sri”.
51. The landlady, Rasamalar (PW-25), in her
examination-in-chief categorically stated that there
was no resident by the name “Sri” in her apartment.
More importantly, in her cross-examination, she
unequivocally deposed that she knew the appellant
only by the name “Ranjan”. She further stated that
she herself had come to India out of fear of the LTTE
and that the appellant too had come with his family
under similar circumstances. She also clarified that
had she known of any connection of the appellant
with the LTTE, she would not have rented out the
premises to him. Additionally, she confirmed that the
appellant had duly registered himself as a refugee at
the K.K. Nagar Police Station, Trichy, where she
herself was registered. Testimony of this witness
34
properly appreciated, does not support the
prosecution case; rather, it clearly establishes that
the appellant was known only as “Ranjan”, and that
no person by the name “Sri” was residing in her
premises on rent.
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.
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
35
was known only as “Ranjan” and had nothing to do
with the alleged absconding accused “Sri”.
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, Chargesheet,
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
36
9
of Karnataka , wherein the issue of doubtful
identity in the absence of corroborative material was
directly considered. This Court observed as follows: -
“ 16. Coming back to the facts and circumstances
of the present case, it is an admitted fact that
Ravikumar (Accused No.1, now deceased) was
known to the eyewitnesses and was also related to
the complainant. Hence, there was no requirement
of TIP as regard to Ravikumar (accused no.1). But
the case of appellant- Vishwananth stands on a
different footing. He was a total stranger to the two
eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. The name
‘Vishwanath’ came to their knowledge, only
after Ravikumar (Accused no. 1) called his co-
accused, by name exhorting him to run. 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. There is none in the present case.
The identification of an accused in court is
acceptable without a prior TIP and absence of TIP
may not be fatal for the prosecution. It would
depend on facts of each case. In the case at hand,
though the appellant was identified in court by PW-
1 and PW-2, the Trial Court did not attach much
weight to it, as no identification proceedings were
conducted, and the Court found it unsafe to
acknowledge the identity merely on the basis of
identification in the Court. In the present case,
where there are six persons by the name of
9
2024 INSC 482.
37
‘Vishwanatha’ in the locality and where this
Court has doubts on the presence of the two star
witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 (who have identified
the accused), we are of the opinion that the
identity of the present appellant remained in
doubt.
17. Another fact which casts a doubt on the
identity of the present appellant, is that there
is no description in the FIR of ‘Vishwanatha’
except that his name is mentioned. He then
becomes the first of the two to be arrested by
the police. Learned counsel of the appellant
would submit that there were six persons by the
name of ‘Vishwanantha’ in Kudupu village at
the relevant point of time, a fact which was
placed by the defence during trial, which has
not been confronted. In such a situation, it was
the duty of the prosecution to show as to how
and on what basis, the appellant came to be
apprehended by the police. The Sub-Inspector,
PS-Mangalore Rural (PW-19), who apprehended
the appellant, had also failed to explain how he
came to apprehend the appellant without any
information regarding his description . A perusal
of the testimony of the Sub-Inspector/PW-19
indicates that there is not even a whisper as to
what formed the basis of the appellant’s arrest.
He was cross-examined and what was gathered
from his cross-examination is that the appellant
was arrested in absence of any independent
witnesses and without preparing any arrest
memo. All these facts combined together cast a
doubt on the identity of the appellant . Thus, it
is not safe to convict the appellant solely only on
the basis of the testimony of PW1 and PW2.”
(Emphasis supplied)
38
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-
39
Ranjan on the basis of belated disclosures, the actual
facts relating to the appellant’s life in Trichy present
a completely different picture.
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.
59. The conduct of the appellant during the relevant
period also merits consideration. Not only the
40
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
th
son. The letter dated 14 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.
61. Prima facie , it appears that Balachandran (PW-
8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9), who had
41
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. It is,
therefore, clearly a case where the appellant has been
falsely implicated by being assigned the identity of
another person, namely, the so-called absconding
accused “Sri” (A-5). The investigating agency has not
placed on record any material to demonstrate the
steps taken by it to locate, apprehend, and bring the
said absconding accused to trial. Such inaction and
indolence on the part of the investigating agency
casts a serious doubt on the bona fides of its conduct.
Conclusion
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.
th
63. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18 July, 2024
passed by the trial Court and impugned judgment
rd
dated 3 April, 2025 passed by the High Court are
hereby set aside.
42
64. The appeal merits acceptance and is hereby
allowed.
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.
66. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
….……………………J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 20, 2026.
43