Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case

Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, set aside the conviction of a Sri Lankan national in a high-profile case involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the prosecution failed to establish a credible link between the appellant and the absconding accused named in the 2015 FIR. The Court observed that a conviction predicated on mistaken identity and material improvements in witness testimonies is "unsafe" and "cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law."

The appellant, a Sri Lankan national residing in Trichy as a registered refugee, was arrested in 2021 on the allegation that he was actually "Sri" (A-5), a prime suspect in a 2015 conspiracy to revive the banned LTTE. He was subsequently convicted by the Trial Court and the Madras High Court for offences under the IPC, UAPA, and the Poisons Act, 1919.

The primary question before the Court was whether the appellant had been implicated in the case on the basis of mistaken identity. The Bench was also called upon to determine whether the identification of the appellant as an alias of the absconding accused was supported by reliable oral or documentary evidence.

Prosecution’s Case Relies Solely On Improved Oral Testimonies

The Bench noted that the entire case regarding the appellant's identity rested on the oral testimonies of two witnesses, Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9). These witnesses claimed that the appellant was introduced to them as "Sri" alias "Ranjan" in 2015. However, the Court found their versions to be "completely unreliable" given their own suspicious conduct and legal status in India.

The Court highlighted that both witnesses were Sri Lankan refugees who had procured Indian identity documents like Aadhaar and PAN cards despite not being citizens. The Bench expressed doubt over why the investigating agency took no action against them, suggesting they might have been "prevailed upon" to implicate the appellant to provide closure to the case.

"The belated introduction of the name 'Ranjan', years after the alleged incident, renders their testimonies highly suspect."

Absence Of Documentary Linkage Prior To Arrest

The Court observed a "complete absence" of reliable oral or documentary evidence linking the appellant to the accused "Sri" (A-5) before his arrest in 2021. Not a single official record, including the FIR or the original Chargesheet filed in 2016, reflected the name "Ranjan" in conjunction with the absconding accused.

The Investigating Officer (PW-29) candidly admitted that prior to the execution of the arrest warrant in 2021, no contemporaneous evidence existed to establish that the appellant used "Sri" as an alias. The Bench remarked that such a highly belated introduction of a name constitutes a "material improvement" that destroys the prosecution's credibility.

"Not a single official record reflects the name 'Ranjan' in conjunction with the absconding accused prior to the appellant’s arrest."

Failure To Conduct Test Identification Parade (TIP)

Applying the principles laid down in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka (2024), the Bench emphasized the necessity of proper identification in cases of doubtful identity. The Court noted that since the witnesses claimed to know the accused by his name only through a third party, and no TIP was conducted, the identification in police custody was insufficient.

The Bench reiterated that while the absence of a TIP may not always be fatal, it becomes a crucial factor when there is no description of the accused in the FIR or early investigation records. In this case, the lack of a physical description or independent corroboration made the identification "wholly doubtful."

Court Distinguishes Precedent On Belated Disclosures

The High Court had previously relied on Abuthagir v. State (2009) to justify the witnesses' delayed mention of the name "Ranjan." However, the Supreme Court clarified that the principle in Abuthagir pertains to delays in examination during investigation and cannot be extended to substantive and material improvements in testimony after years of silence.

The Court found that the silence of PW-8 and PW-9 in earlier trials of other co-accused regarding the name "Ranjan" was a "debilitating" factor. It ruled that such gaps in evidence cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential lapses of memory, as they go to the very root of the accused's identity.

"The principle laid down in Abuthagir cannot be extended to a situation where there is a substantive and material improvement in testimony."

Appellant’s Conduct Consistent With Innocence

The Bench found that the appellant’s life in Trichy presented a "completely different picture" than that of an absconding terrorist. He was residing openly at a known address, had registered himself as a refugee with the local police, and was actively engaging with the Swiss Embassy for a visa to join his family.

The Court observed that a person absconding in a serious UAPA matter would not "dare to apply to a foreign embassy for a visa" or seek police clearance from the very station under whose jurisdiction he allegedly resided under a false identity. This conduct, the Court noted, was "wholly inconsistent" with the prosecution’s theory.

"A person who is an absconding accused in a serious UAPA matter would not dare to apply to a foreign embassy for a visa."

Investigation Marred By Indolence And Inaction

The Court slammed the investigating agency for its failure to trace the absconding accused "Sri" for over five years despite claiming he was residing openly under an alias. The Bench noted that the total lack of effort to establish a credible link during that entire period created "grave doubt" regarding the bona fides of the investigation.

Concluding that the appellant had been "falsely implicated" by being assigned the identity of another person, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Bench ordered the immediate release of the appellant from the Special Camp in Trichy.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Court further granted him the liberty to pursue his request for relocation to Switzerland in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: May 20, 2026