The Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted a Sri Lankan refugee convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), holding that he was wrongly identified as an absconding accused merely because both shared the prefix name “Sri” 

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench judgment as well as the trial court conviction, observing that the prosecution had failed to establish any reliable link between the appellant, Ranjan, and the absconding accused “Sri”.

The Court found that the prosecution case rested entirely on the testimonies of two witnesses whose statements materially changed after the appellant’s arrest in 2021. During cross-examination, both witnesses admitted that they had never mentioned the name “Ranjan” in earlier proceedings and identified him only after he was taken into police custody.

“The belated introduction of this name, years after the alleged incident, renders their testimonies highly suspect. Their silence in earlier proceedings, followed by this subsequent disclosure, constitutes a material improvement rather than a mere lapse of memory,” the Court observed.

The case stemmed from a 2015 FIR registered by the Q Branch Police Station in Ramanathapuram alleging a conspiracy to revive the banned LTTE organisation. Charges were invoked under Section 120B of the IPC, various provisions of the UAPA, the Poisons Act, the Foreigners Act and the Passport Act.

According to the prosecution, several accused persons had conspired in Trichy to send cyanide capsules and chemicals to Sri Lanka for eliminating rival Tamil leaders. The appellant was alleged to be accused No. 5, “Sri”, who had supposedly supplied 75 cyanide capsules and chemical substances.

However, the appellant maintained throughout the proceedings that his real name was Ranjan and not “Sri”. He pointed out that he had been living openly in Trichy since 2012 as a registered Sri Lankan refugee after lawfully entering India in 2009 on a valid passport and visa.

Despite this defence, both the trial court and High Court convicted him, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, Justice Mehta’s judgment held that there was no documentary evidence, contemporaneous description or independent corroboration connecting the appellant with the absconding accused.

“The absence of reliable identification material and the failure of the prosecution to establish how the appellant came to be implicated in the case by linking him as ‘Sri’ using an alias name renders the case on identity wholly doubtful, making it unsafe to sustain the conviction,” the Court said.

The Bench also highlighted a major lapse in the investigation — the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) after the appellant’s arrest. The Court noted that none of the witnesses had identified “Ranjan” as an alias of “Sri” during the investigation or in earlier trials connected to the same case.

Importantly, the FIR itself contained no description linking the appellant to the alleged accused. Referring to Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that where the identity of an accused is unknown, failure to hold a TIP significantly weakens the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court consequently ordered the appellant’s immediate release from the Special Camp in Trichy and granted him liberty to pursue his request for relocation to Switzerland in accordance with law.