Conviction under the UAPA and allied offences cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to reliably establish the identity of the accused, and the case rests solely on materially improved and doubtful witness testimony.

on

Facts

The appellant, a Sri Lankan national named “Ranjan”, entered India in 2009 with a valid passport and visa and registered himself as a non-camp refugee in Tamil Nadu along with his family.

In FIR No. 1/2015 registered by the Q Branch Police, Ramanathapuram, allegations were made regarding a conspiracy to revive the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”). The prosecution alleged that one “Sri” (A-5) supplied cyanide capsules, GPS devices and poisonous substances to co-accused Krishnakumar for smuggling to Sri Lanka to revive LTTE operations.

The appellant was arrested only in December 2021 on the allegation that he was actually “Sri” alias “Ranjan”, the absconding accused A-5. He consistently denied this identity and pleaded mistaken identity throughout the proceedings.

The Trial Court convicted him under s. 120-B IPC, ss. 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) UAPA, s. 6 Poisons Act, 1919, S. 14(c) Foreigners Act, 1946, and s. 3 r/w s. 12(1)(a) Passport Act, 1967. The High Court affirmed the conviction.

Issues Framed

(a) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant “Ranjan” was the same person as the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5).

(b) Whether conviction could be sustained solely on belated and materially improved identification evidence without contemporaneous documentary corroboration or a Test Identification Parade (“TIP”).

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court found that the prosecution case on identity rested entirely upon the testimony of two witnesses, Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9). Both witnesses admitted that in earlier proceedings and police statements they had referred only to “Sri” and had never disclosed that “Sri” was also known as “Ranjan”. This disclosure emerged only after the appellant’s arrest in 2021.

(b) The Court held that the belated introduction of the name “Ranjan” constituted a “material improvement” and not a mere lapse of memory. The High Court wrongly relied upon Abuthagir v. State, (2009) 17 SCC 208, because the present case involved substantive improvement affecting credibility itself.

(c) The Court severely doubted the credibility of PW-8 and PW-9, noting that both were Sri Lankan refugees allegedly holding Indian identity documents despite lacking citizenship status and had themselves harboured the principal accused while remaining silent about alleged LTTE activities.

(d) The Court further held that the evidence of the appellant’s landlady (PW-25) and neighbours (PW-17 and PW-18) actually contradicted the prosecution case. These witnesses consistently stated that they knew the appellant only as “Ranjan” and not as “Sri”.

(e) No contemporaneous document linked the appellant to the alias “Sri”. The Investigating Officer himself admitted that the name “Ranjan” did not appear anywhere in earlier proceedings, FIRs, or investigation records before the appellant’s arrest.

(f) Relying upon Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 482, the Court reiterated that where identity is doubtful, no TIP is conducted, and there is no reliable corroboration, conviction becomes unsafe.

(g) The Court also found the appellant’s conduct inconsistent with that of an absconding terrorist accused. He had openly lived in Trichy for years under registered refugee status and had actively pursued a Swiss visa and police clearance certificate to join his family in Switzerland.

(h) The Court ultimately observed that the investigating agency appeared to have falsely implicated the appellant merely to “give a closure to the case”.

Held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed his immediate release from the Special Camp, Trichy. The Court further held that he would be free to pursue relocation to Switzerland in accordance with law.

Ratio

A conviction under the UAPA, IPC, and allied statutes cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish the accused’s identity through reliable contemporaneous evidence, and the case rests solely on materially improved witness testimony unsupported by proper identification procedures or documentary corroboration

 Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 516
Decided on: 20 May 2026
Case Title: Sri v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi