False Identity Cannot Sustain Terror Conviction

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, a Sri Lankan national, after holding that he had been falsely implicated by being assigned the identity of another person, described in the record as the absconding accused “Sri” (A-5).

Facts

The appellant had come to India in 2009 with a valid Sri Lankan passport and tourist visa. He and his family registered as non-camp refugees in Tamil Nadu and, according to the record, lived in Trichy for more than a decade without complaint. In 2021, while awaiting police clearance for a Swiss visa, he was arrested by Q Branch officers on the allegation that he was actually “Sri” alias “Ranjan”, an accused in Crime No. 1 of 2015.

The prosecution case arose from an alleged conspiracy to revive the banned LTTE. The FIR alleged that “Sri” (A-5) had handed over cyanide capsules and chemical GPS-4 to another accused for transport to Sri Lanka. The investigation led to seizures from other accused persons and to a trial in which the appellant was convicted under Section 120B IPC, Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the UAPA, Section 6 of the Poisons Act, Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, and Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Passport Act.

Issue

The central question was whether the evidence on record could lawfully connect the appellant with the alleged conspiracy, or whether he had merely been substituted for the absconding accused.

Holding and reasoning

The Court found the prosecution evidence unreliable. It noted that the appellant had consistently identified himself as Ranjan, son of Gunabalasingam, and had relied on his passport and other documents. The Court also found that the oral testimony relied upon by the prosecution was not dependable.

A key part of the reasoning was the Court’s view that the investigating agency had not placed any material showing steps taken to locate, apprehend, or produce the actual absconding accused. The Court observed that the appellant appeared to have been implicated through a bargain with witnesses who themselves were under scrutiny, and that the case was one where he was falsely implicated by being assigned another person’s identity.

On that basis, the Court held that there was no evidence connecting the appellant with the crime. It set aside the conviction and sentence dated 18 July 2024 and the High Court judgment dated 3 April 2025.

Relief

The appeal was allowed. The appellant was acquitted and directed to be released from the Special Camp, Trichy forthwith. The Court also recorded that he would be at liberty to pursue his request for relocation or movement to Switzerland in accordance with law.

Practical takeaway

Where identity itself is disputed, the prosecution must produce reliable material linking the accused to the offence, not merely rely on an assumed or substituted name.