SRIversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU

                 [2026] 6 S.C.R. 458 : 2026 INSC 516

                               Sri
                                v.
              State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
             Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu
                   (Criminal Appeal No(s). 5141 of 2025)
                                 20 May 2026
     [Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the appellant was implicated in the present case on the
       basis of mistaken identity.

                                   Headnotes†
       Case of Mistaken Identity – FIR was registered u/ss.120B IPC;
       ss.10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), 38(1), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
       1967; s.6, Poisons Act, 1919; s.14(c), Foreigners Act, 1946;
       and s.3 r/w s.12(1)(a), Passport Act, 1967 at Q Branch police
       station, Trichy, in May, 2015 alleging that a conspiracy was
       being hatched between A-1, A-5 (named ‘Sri’) and certain other
       accused persons, to revive the banned Liberation Tigers of
       Tamil Eelam (LTTE) organization – Appellant-a Sri Lankan
       national named “Ranjan”, who had come to India in 2009
       along with his wife and son holding a legally valid Sri Lankan
       passport and a valid tourist visa and was registered as non-
       camp refugee, was arrested in 2021 alleging that his actual
       name was “Sri” alias “Ranjan” and that he was the absconding
       accused-A-5 in the aforesaid pending case who allegedly
       handed over the cyanide capsules and poisonous substances
       to A-1 in 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 – Appellant convicted by
       Trial Court and sentenced accordingly – Conviction confirmed
       by High Court – Interference with:
       Held: Judgment of the trial Court and the impugned judgment, set
       aside – Courts below erred in holding that the appellant-Ranjan is
       the same as the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5), and the conviction
       based on the flawed identification is unsustainable – The identity of
       the appellant rests solely on the belated and improved testimonies
* Author
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                             459

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

     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) –
     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 – 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
     and was being actively searched for since 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” – Total lack of effort on the part of the IOs
     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 – Moreover, not only the
     appellant was residing openly at his known address, but he was
     also 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
     son – On facts, the conduct of the appellant is wholly inconsistent
     with the prosecution’s case and entirely consistent with that of an
     innocent person going about his routine life – Appellant was falsely
     implicated in this case without there being any evidence to connect
     him with the crime, acquitted. [Paras 43, 56, 58, 59, 62, 63]

     Evidence – Material Improvement – When:
     Held: Entire case of the prosecution on the question of identity
     rests solely on the oral testimony of PW-8 and PW-9, whose
     version is completely unreliable – No Test Identification Parade
     was conducted after the appellant’s arrest – There is a complete
     absence of reliable oral or documentary evidence linking the
     appellant to the accused “Sri” (A-5) – IO (PW-29) himself admitted
     that only the name “Sri” appears in the earlier proceedings and
460                                                             [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       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.
       [Paras 30, 53, 54]

                                Case Law Cited
       Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 482 : [2024] 7
       SCR 50 – relied on.
       Abuthagir v. State [2009) 8 SCR 432 : (2009) 17 SCC 208 – held
       inapplicable.

                                  List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967;
       Poisons Act, 1919; Foreigners Act, 1946; Passport Act, 1967;
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                               List of Keywords
       Mistaken identity; Implicated on the basis of mistaken identity; Not
       same as the absconding accused; Absconding accused; Alleged
       absconding accused; Flawed identification; Falsely implicated;
       False implication; Doubtful identity; Ranjan; Sri alias Ranjan;
       Sri; No contemporaneous description; No documentary linkage;
       No independent corroboration; Absence of reliable identification
       material; Continuously residing in Trichy; Openly residing in Trichy;
       Belated and improved testimonies; Belated introduction of name;
       Belated introduction of name post-arrest; Substantive and material
       improvement in testimony; Earlier depositions conspicuously silent
       on very same aspect; Innocent person; Going about routine life;
       Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE); Banned organization;
       Conspiracy to rejuvenate LTTE; Revival of LTTE; Sri Lankan
       national; Legally valid Sri Lankan passport; Legally valid passport;
       Valid tourist visa; Non-camp refugee; Cyanide capsules; Material
       Improvement; Absence of corroborative material; Importance of
       proper identification; Test Identification Parade (TIP); No Test
       Identification Parade conducted.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                         461

                     Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                      Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

                                          Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       5141 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2025 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLAMD No. 698 of 2024

                                     Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       T.S. Nanda Kumar, S. Jayakumar, S. Rajendra Kumar, T.S. Suresh,
       N.J. Nakeeran, Dishant Vashisht, Ms. Seema Sindhu, Ms. Kulsum
       Nesha.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Veshal Tyagi.

                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                  Judgment

       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 Code, 18601, Sections
       10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
       Act, 19672, 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 Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram3 in Sessions Case No.
       02/2018. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th
       July, 2024, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as below: -




1    For short, “IPC”
2    For short “UAP Act”
3    Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
462                                                                   [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports



         S.                                                               Default
                     Charged Offence                 Sentence
         No.                                                             Sentence
          1.     Section 120B of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment 15 months Simple
                                         for 5 (Five) years and Imprisonment
                                         to pay a fine of Rs.
                                         10,000/-
          2.     Section 120(B) IPC r/w         Rigorous Imprisonment 15 months Simple
                 Sections 10(a)(i) and          for 5 (Five) years and Imprisonment
                 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the     to pay a fine of Rs.
                 UAP Act                        10,000/-
          3.     Section 6 of the Poisons Rigorous Imprisonment 1 month Simple
                 Act, 1919                for 3 (Three) months Imprisonment
                                          and to pay a fine of Rs.
                                          1,000/-
          4.     Section 120B IPC r/w Rigorous Imprisonment 1 y e a r S i m p l e
                 Section 14(c) of the for 3 (Three) years and Imprisonment
                 Foreigners Act, 1946 to pay a fine of Rs.
                                      1,000/-
          5.     Section 120B IPC r/w Rigorous Imprisonment 8 months Simple
                 Section 3 r/w Section for 2 (Two) years and to Imprisonment
                 12(1)(a) of the Passport pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
                 Act, 1967

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
       Madras High Court4 vide judgment dated 3rd 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.
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


4    Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                       463

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

     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 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 Embassy at New Delhi vide letter dated 14th 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 Ramanathapuram on 16th 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, 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 Tigers
464                                                      [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


       of Tamil Eelam5 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.
12. Acting on the said tip off, the Q Branch police conducted a vehicle
    search on 20th 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 on 25th July,
    2015, from whose possession a route map, a list containing names
    of certain Sri Lankan leaders, a SIM card, a pen drive, a cell phone
    and a bag were recovered. In a follow-up search made at A-4’s
    house in Chennai on 26th 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 Procedure, 19736 was
    filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram,
    showing “Sri” (A-5) and Kumaran (A-6) as absconding accused. The


5   For short “LTTE”
6   For short “CrPC”
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                       465

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

     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, the case was split up by
    order dated 15th 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
    vide judgment dated 28th April, 2018.
16. Kumaran (A-6) was arrested on 25th October, 2016, and a separate
    trial was conducted against him in S.C. No. 15 of 2016, wherein
    learned trial Court vide order dated 30th 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 “Sri” (A-5) by order
    dated 18th 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 accused “Sri” (A-5) by arresting the
    appellant on 16th December, 2021. After his arrest, Q Branch Officers
    conducted searches at the appellant’s rental house at Awaiyar Street,
    Subramaniapuram, Trichy on 4th January, 2022 and 15th 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 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 defence. Trial Court vide judgment dated 18th 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
    dated 3rd April, 2025, which is subject matter of challenge in this
    appeal by special leave.
466                                                          [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


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 Court
    vide order dated 1st 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, vide order dated 16th December 2025,
    granted bail with the stipulation that he be lodged in the Special
    Camp at Trichy in terms of G.O. (ID) No. 649 dated 11th 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,
    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
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                           467

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

     (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.
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 revive the movement
           with his L.T.T.E. friends, Sri alias Ranjan alias Rajan and
           Subashkaran alias Prabha, Murugan alias Kumaran, and
           Shiva….
468                                                     [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       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 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….
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                            469

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

           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 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……
470                                                     [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       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 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          471

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

           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 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
472                                                       [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                                473

                    Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                     Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

              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 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 Test Identification Parade7
              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


7   For short, “TIP”.
474                                                    [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 removed his
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                        475

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

           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)

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”.
476                                                        [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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 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 even after order dated 1st 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.
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
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                         477

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

     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
    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.
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
478                                                           [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


              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
              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 relying on the decision of
              this Court in Abuthagir v. State8, 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.


8   (2009) 17 SCC 208.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                            479

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

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.
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), 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
480                                                          [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       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 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) 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                         481

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

     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 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
    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
482                                                              [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       identity through reliable evidence, it would be apposite to refer to the
       observations of this Court in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka9,
       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 ‘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


9   2024 INSC 482.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                        483

               Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

           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)

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.
484                                                         [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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-
    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 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 son. The letter dated 14th 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)
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                           485

                 Sri v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                  Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

     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 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.
63. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18th July, 2024 passed by the trial
    Court and impugned judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 passed by the
    High Court are hereby set aside.
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.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey