TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court

"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," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of a flawed identification where the prosecution fails to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and relies solely on belated improvements in witness testimonies regarding an accused’s alias.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi observed that in cases where an identity is not previously established and the accused is a stranger to the witnesses, the absence of a TIP and lack of physical description in the FIR creates a grave doubt regarding the bona fides of the prosecution.

The case arose from the arrest of the appellant, a Sri Lankan national named Ranjan, in 2021. The prosecution claimed he was actually "Sri" (A-5), an absconding accused in a 2015 conspiracy case involving the revival of the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). While the Trial Court and the Madras High Court convicted him based on the oral testimony of two "star" witnesses, the Supreme Court found the identification to be a result of "mistaken identity" and a "bargain" by witnesses under investigation themselves.

The primary question before the court was whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained when his identification as the absconding accused "Sri" was made for the first time in police custody without a TIP. The court also examined whether the belated introduction of the name "Ranjan" as an alias for "Sri" by witnesses years after their initial statements constituted a material improvement that vitiated the trial.

Prosecution Fails To Conduct Test Identification Parade

The Court noted that the appellant was a total stranger to the prosecution witnesses, PW-8 and PW-9, at the time of the alleged incident in 2015. Despite this, the investigating agency did not conduct a Test Identification Parade after his arrest in 2021. The bench observed that the identification was done only while the appellant was in police custody, which is a weak form of evidence.

The bench emphasized that in cases where the identity of the accused is not known to the witnesses beforehand, a TIP is a vital corroborative tool. The Court held that the failure of the prosecution to establish how they linked the appellant to the name "Sri" using an alias renders the case on identity wholly doubtful.

"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."

Belated Introduction Of Alias Constitutes Material Improvement

The bench scrutinized the testimonies of the star witnesses, Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar (PW-9), noting that in earlier trials held in 2016 and 2018, they had never mentioned the name "Ranjan." They had only referred to the suspect as "Sri." The name "Ranjan" only surfaced in their depositions after the appellant's arrest in 2021.

The Court held that this was not a mere "lapse of memory" but a substantive and material improvement in testimony. Such a belated disclosure, specifically linking a new name to a previously known alias, has a "debilitating effect" on the credibility of the witnesses. The Court rejected the High Court's reliance on the Abuthagir v. State precedent, stating that the principle of "belated disclosure" cannot be extended to cover material improvements that contradict earlier depositions.

Absence Of Description In Initial Investigation Records

The Court highlighted that not a single official record, including the FIR and the Chargesheet, reflected the name "Ranjan" in conjunction with the accused "Sri" prior to the appellant’s arrest. The Investigating Officer (PW-29) candidly admitted that there was no contemporaneous documentary or oral evidence to establish that the appellant was known by the name "Sri."

Drawing parity with the precedent in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka (2024), the Court noted that when there is no description of the accused in the FIR and the police fail to explain the basis of the arrest, the identity remains in doubt. In the present case, the lack of any physical description of "Sri" in the 2015 records made it "unsafe to sustain the conviction" based on the 2021 identification.

"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."

Witness Conduct Found Highly Unnatural And Suspicious

The bench expressed serious concern over the conduct of PW-8 and PW-9, who were also Sri Lankan refugees. The witnesses admitted to possessing forged Indian identity documents like Aadhaar and PAN cards despite not being citizens. The Court noted that the investigating agency had not taken any action against them, suggesting they were "prevailed upon" to implicate the appellant.

The Court observed that these witnesses claimed to have seen the accused handing over cyanide capsules in 2015 but remained silent for years. They continued to harbour the main accused without informing the police. Such conduct was termed "highly unnatural and suspicious," and the Court remarked that there was actually "ample material to prosecute these witnesses" rather than relying on them as star witnesses.

Appellant’s Open Residence Contradicts Absconding Theory

The bench found it "damning" to the prosecution’s case that the appellant had been residing openly in Trichy for over a decade. He was duly registered as a refugee with the local police station and lived at a known address with his family. The prosecution’s claim that he was "absconding" as "Sri" while living openly as "Ranjan" was found to be contradictory.

The Court further noted that the appellant was actively engaging with the Switzerland Embassy for a visa and seeking police clearance. The bench remarked that a person absconding 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" where he was allegedly being searched for. This conduct was found to be entirely consistent with that of an innocent person.

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was a victim of "mistaken identity" and had been "falsely implicated" without any evidence connecting him to the 2015 crime. The bench held that the Trial Court and the High Court had misread the evidence and ignored glaring contradictions in the prosecution's case.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. It further directed his immediate release from the Special Camp in Trichy, granting him the liberty to pursue his relocation to Switzerland in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: May 20, 2026