Conviction Cannot Stand When Identity of the Accused Is Doubtful and Based Only on Belated Improved Witness Testimony

Case Name: Sri v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 INSC 516

Date of Judgment/Order: 20 May 2026

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Held: The Supreme Court held that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish, through reliable oral or documentary evidence, that the person tried is the same person named as the absconding accused. The Court ruled that belated and improved testimony identifying the appellant as “Sri” alias “Ranjan”, especially when earlier statements and depositions mentioned only “Sri” and never connected that name with the appellant, created serious doubt on identity. The Court further held that where no Test Identification Parade was conducted, no contemporaneous record linked the appellant to the alleged alias, and the appellant was openly residing as a registered refugee under his known name, it would be unsafe and unjust to uphold conviction on a doubtful identity theory.

Summary: The appellant, a Sri Lankan national known as “Ranjan”, had entered India with valid travel documents and was registered as a non-camp refugee in Tamil Nadu. He was later arrested in 2021 on the allegation that he was the absconding accused “Sri” in a 2015 case involving alleged conspiracy to revive the banned LTTE by supplying cyanide capsules, chemical substances and other materials for transportation to Sri Lanka. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 120B IPC, provisions of the UAPA, the Poisons Act, the Foreigners Act and the Passport Act, and the Madras High Court affirmed the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he had been falsely implicated by assigning him the identity of a different person. The Court examined the evidence of the two principal prosecution witnesses, who had identified him as “Sri” only after his arrest and had not earlier mentioned that “Sri” was also known as “Ranjan”. The Court found their testimony unreliable due to material improvements, suspicious conduct, absence of earlier disclosure, and failure of the investigating agency to conduct proper identification proceedings. It also noted that the appellant’s landlady and neighbours knew him only as “Ranjan”, and his open residence, police registration and Swiss visa process were inconsistent with the conduct of an absconding accused.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Madras High Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith from the Special Camp, Trichy, and held that he shall be at liberty to pursue his request for relocation or movement to Switzerland in accordance with law. Pending applications were disposed of.