The Supreme Court has acquitted a Sri Lankan refugee who had been convicted for alleged links with the banned LTTE organisation, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish his identity beyond reasonable doubt and that he was wrongly implicated by assigning him the identity of another accused.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that the identification process itself suffered from serious deficiencies. No Test Identification Parade had been conducted despite the prosecution relying heavily upon witness identification. The Court noted that the appellant was identified only after he had already been shown to the witnesses while in police custody.

The case arose from allegations connected with FIR registered by the Tamil Nadu Q Branch relating to an alleged conspiracy to revive the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The prosecution alleged that an accused identified as “Sri” had supplied cyanide capsules and poisonous substances to another accused for transportation to Sri Lanka to assist in reorganising LTTE activities and targeting rival Tamil leaders.

The appellant, however, maintained throughout the proceedings that he was not the accused “Sri” referred to in the case. He asserted that his actual name was Ranjan and that he had entered India lawfully in 2009 with a valid Sri Lankan passport and visa along with his wife and child. He had registered himself as a non-camp refugee and had been residing openly in Tamil Nadu for years.

The prosecution sought to establish that “Sri” and “Ranjan” were one and the same person. Trial and High Court decisions had accepted testimony from two principal witnesses who claimed that the accused was known by several aliases, including “Sri,” “Ranjan,” and others, and that he had been involved with LTTE activities. On this basis, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for offences under the IPC, UAPA, Passport Act, Foreigners Act and Poisons Act.

The Supreme Court, however, subjected the prosecution evidence to close scrutiny and found serious flaws. It noted that the two principal witnesses had never previously stated during earlier investigations or earlier trials that “Sri” was also known as “Ranjan.” According to the Court, this critical fact emerged only after the appellant’s arrest, making it a material improvement rather than a mere clarification.

The Court further questioned the credibility of the two star witnesses. It noted that both individuals admitted during cross-examination that they had obtained various Indian identity documents despite not being Indian citizens and had themselves assisted or sheltered persons allegedly connected with LTTE activities. The Court observed that despite such material, no action appeared to have been taken against them by investigators.

The Bench also found that evidence of the appellant’s landlady and neighbours actually contradicted the prosecution’s narrative rather than supporting it. The landlady had categorically stated that no person named “Sri” resided in her premises and that she knew the appellant only as “Ranjan.” Neighbours similarly did not identify him as “Sri,” but only described routine interactions with him as an ordinary resident.

Another factor that heavily influenced the Court was the appellant’s conduct during the period in which the prosecution claimed he was absconding. The Court observed that he had continued to live openly at his registered address and was actively pursuing a Swiss visa process to join his wife and child, who had already settled abroad. The Court stated that an absconding accused in a serious UAPA case would ordinarily not approach authorities and foreign institutions for police clearances and visa processing.

In one of its strongest observations, the Court stated that the investigating agency had failed to produce any material showing what efforts had been made to locate and apprehend the real absconding accused named “Sri.” The Bench remarked that the appellant appeared to have been falsely implicated merely to provide closure to the pending investigation.

Setting aside both the trial court and High Court judgments, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court further directed that he be released immediately from the Special Camp at Trichy and permitted him to pursue his request for relocation to Switzerland in accordance with law.

Case Details

Case Title: Sri Versus State

Citation: JURISHOUR-1317-SC-2026

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 5141 OF 2025

Date: 20/05/2026

Read More: Supreme Court Upholds Penalty for Misdeclaration of Power Generation Capacity