Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National in UAPA Case, Cites Mistaken Identity

The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction of a Sri Lankan national who was sentenced to five years' imprisonment under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly trying to revive the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) group, holding that the case was one of mistaken identity and false implication.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeal filed by Ranjan, who had come to India in 2009 with his wife, Smt Archana, and son, Pavalan, on a valid Sri Lankan passport and a tourist visa issued by the Government of India.

He was arrested in December 2021 in connection with a 2015 UAPA case. According to him, the police had wrongly identified him as "Sri", an absconding accused in the case.

Ranjan was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, on July 18, 2024. His appeal was later dismissed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on April 3, 2025.

Why did the Supreme Court find it to be a case of mistaken identity?

Before the Supreme Court, Ranjan's counsel argued that before leaving Sri Lanka, he had obtained clearance from Sri Lankan law enforcement authorities certifying that he had no criminal antecedents. His passport also recorded his name as Ranjan.

Also Read| 'Judicial Review Limited in Matters of National Security': Delhi HC Rejects Plea for Impleadment in LTTE Tribunal Proceedings

After arriving in India, he registered himself with the K K Nagar Police Station in Trichy, Tamil Nadu, and continued living there for more than a decade without any criminal complaint against him.

In 2014, his wife and son moved to Switzerland, where they were granted asylum and later citizenship. Ranjan also applied for a Swiss visa. However, on December 16, 2021, he was arrested on the allegation that his real name was "Sri" alias "Ranjan" and that he was an accused in the pending UAPA case.

The prosecution alleged that Ranjan, along with others, was attempting to revive the banned LTTE.

It further alleged that as part of the conspiracy, "Sri" had handed over 75 cyanide capsules and 60 grams of the chemical GPS-4, used for making cyanide, to co-accused Krishnakumar, with instructions to travel to Sri Lanka by ferry and deliver them to another Sri Lankan national, "Kavi", to help reorganise LTTE cadres and eliminate rival Tamil leaders.

After examining the record, the Supreme Court found significant gaps in the prosecution's case and criticised the investigating agency for its "inaction and indolence" in tracing the real absconding accused.

"A person who is an absconding accused in a serious UAPA matter would not dare to apply to a foreign embassy for a visa and seek a police clearance certificate from the very police station in whose jurisdiction he admittedly resided under a false identity. This conduct is wholly inconsistent with the prosecution's case and is entirely consistent with the conduct of an innocent person going about his routine life," the Bench observed.

Also Read| “This Is Not A Dharmshala”: Supreme Court Refuses Sri Lankan National’s Plea To Stay In India

Court also noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and said the appellant's documented and lawful conduct during the period he was allegedly absconding further weakened the prosecution's case.

It found that Ranjan had been openly residing in Trichy and had duly registered himself as a refugee throughout this period.

"The total lack of effort on the part of the investigating officers to trace and apprehend the absconding accused 'Sri', 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," the Bench said.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court acquitted Ranjan of all charges, set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the Madras High Court, and directed his immediate release from the Special Camp in Trichy.

Court also clarified that he would be at liberty to pursue his request for relocation or movement to Switzerland in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Sri Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police Q Branch Ramanathapuram Tamil Nadu

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi

Date of Judgment: May 20, 2026