The Supreme Court has acquitted a Sri Lankan refugee who had been convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly conspiring to revive the banned LTTE organisation, holding that he was falsely implicated due to mistaken identity.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeal filed by a Sri Lankan national who had been convicted for being an absconding accused (“Sri”) in a 2015 LTTE conspiracy case registered by the Tamil Nadu Q Branch police.
The prosecution case was that “Sri” had supplied cyanide capsules and poisonous chemicals to co-accused persons for smuggling into Sri Lanka to revive LTTE activities and eliminate rival Tamil leaders. The appellant, however, submitted that he was not the person named “Sri” and his real name was “Ranjan,” reflected in his passport, refugee registration and other official records.
The Court found serious flaws in the prosecution’s case, particularly in the identification evidence of two key witnesses who, during earlier trials, had never stated that “Sri” was also known as “Ranjan.” The Bench noted that the name “Ranjan” surfaced only after the appellant’s arrest in 2021, years after the alleged incident.
The Court observed: “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’.”
The Bench further criticised the investigation, noting that the appellant had openly lived in Trichy for years as a registered refugee and had even been pursuing relocation to Switzerland to join his wife and son, who had obtained asylum there. The Court remarked that an actual absconding accused in a serious UAPA case would not openly approach authorities and foreign embassies for police clearances and visa processing.
Questioning the conduct of the investigating agency, the Court also noted that the two prosecution witnesses themselves admitted to possessing Indian identity documents despite lacking Indian citizenship, yet no action had been taken against them.
Setting aside both the trial court conviction and the Madras High Court judgment, the Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released from the Special Camp in Trichy forthwith and permitted him to pursue relocation to Switzerland in accordance with law.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.S. Nanda Kumar, AOR; Mr. S. Jayakumar, Adv.; Mr. S. Rajendra Kumar, Adv.; Mr. T.s. Suresh, Adv.; Mr. N.j. Nakeeran, Adv.; Mr. Dishant Vashisht, Adv.; Ms. Seema Sindhu, Adv.; Ms. Kulsum Nesha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR; Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.; Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv
