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

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 516
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-05-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5141 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sri-v-state-rep-by-the-inspector-of-police-q-branch-ramanathapuram-tamil-nadu-39407
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

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 noncamp 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
vers

## Text

_Characters 0–39,876 of 60,571. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39876 for what follows._

[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 noncamp 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.
No.
Charged Offence
Sentence
Default
Sentence
1.
Section 120B of the IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment
for 5 (Five) years and
to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/-
15 months Simple
Imprisonment
2.
Section 120(B) IPC r/w
Sections 10(a)(i) and
10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the
UAP Act
Rigorous Imprisonment
for 5 (Five) years and
to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/-
15 months Simple
Imprisonment
3.
Section 6 of the Poisons
Act, 1919
Rigorous Imprisonment
for 3 (Three) months
and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/-
1 month Simple
Imprisonment
4.
Section 120B IPC r/w
Section 14(c) of the
Foreigners Act, 1946
Rigorous Imprisonment
for 3 (Three) years and
to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/-
1 year Simple
Imprisonment
5.
Section 120B IPC r/w
Section 3 r/w Section
12(1)(a) of the Passport
Act, 1967
Rigorous Imprisonment
for 2 (Two) years and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
8 months Simple
Imprisonment
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 GPS4 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 abovementioned 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.