The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a Sri Lankan national in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The Court found that investigators wrongly identified the appellant as an absconding accused allegedly linked to a conspiracy to revive the banned LTTE organisation.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, Sri alias Ranjan. The Court overturned the Madras High Court judgment that had upheld his conviction.
Justice Sandeep Mehta authored the judgment.
Prosecution Alleged LTTE Conspiracy
The case arose from an FIR registered by the Q Branch Police Station, Ramanathapuram.
The prosecution alleged that several accused persons met at Trichy in May 2015 and conspired to send cyanide capsules and chemicals to Sri Lanka for eliminating rival Tamil leaders.
Investigators claimed that accused No. 5, identified as “Sri”, supplied 75 cyanide capsules and 60 grams of a chemical substance called GPS-4.
Police arrested the appellant only in December 2021, although the case had remained pending since 2015.
Appellant Claimed Mistaken Identity
The appellant consistently argued that his name was Ranjan and not Sri.
He stated that he had lived openly in Trichy since 2012 as a registered Sri Lankan refugee.
He also informed the Court that he had lawfully entered India in 2009 with a valid passport and tourist visa along with his family.
According to the appellant, he continuously stayed at addresses known to local police authorities.
Despite these submissions, the trial court convicted him. The Madras High Court later refused to interfere with the conviction.
Supreme Court Finds Evidence Unreliable
The Supreme Court closely examined the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW-8 and PW-9.
The Bench noted that both witnesses admitted during cross-examination that they had never referred to the appellant as “Ranjan” in earlier proceedings.
The Court observed that investigators introduced the name “Ranjan” only after the appellant’s arrest and while he remained in police custody.
According to the Bench, such a delayed disclosure amounted to a material improvement in the prosecution case.
The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to produce any contemporaneous description, documentary material or independent evidence linking the appellant with the absconding accused “Sri”.
Failure To Conduct TIP Weakened Prosecution Case
The Supreme Court further observed that investigators failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) after arresting the appellant.
The Court pointed out that no witness identified Ranjan as the alleged accused “Sri” during investigation.
The Bench also noted that neither witness statements nor earlier depositions mentioned the name “Ranjan”.
The prosecution first used the description “Sri alias Ranjan” only after the appellant’s arrest in 2021.
Referring to Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that identity evidence becomes weak where investigators fail to conduct a TIP and no prior description of the accused exists in the FIR or witness statements.
Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish how the appellant became linked to accused “Sri”.
Finding the identity evidence unreliable, the Court ruled that the conviction could not stand.
The Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
The Court also directed authorities to release the appellant immediately from the Special Camp at Trichy.
Additionally, the Bench granted him liberty to pursue his request for relocation to Switzerland in accordance with law.
