Madras High Court
Sri vs State Rep. By on 3 April, 2025
CRL.A(MD).No.698 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 27.01.2025
Pronounced on : 03.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).No.698 of 2024
Sri ... Appellant
Vs.
State rep. By,
The Inspector of Police,
Q Branch, Ramanathapuram ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C
and Section 415 of BNSS to set aside the judgment dated 18.07.2024
made in S.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge at Ramnad, and acquit the accused.
For Appellant : Mr. S.Rajendrakumar
For Respondent : Mr. Meenatchi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
CRL.A(MD).No.698 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Absconding Accused No. 5 in Cr.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the
Respondent Police has filed this Appeal challenging the following
conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against him in
the split up case in S.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
Sl. Charged Conviction Sentence of default
No. Offence imprisonment sentence
1 120(B) convicted Five years of Rigorous 15 months
Imprisonment and to simple
pay a fine of Rs. imprisonment
10,000/-
2 120(B) IPC convicted Five years of Rigorous 15 months
r/w 10(a)(i) Imprisonment and to simple
and (iv) and pay a fine of Rs. imprisonment
38(1)of 10,000/-
Unlawful
Activities
(Prevention)
Act, 1967
3 6 of Poisons Convicted Three months of 1 month simple
Act, 1919 Rigorous imprisonment
Imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/-
4 120(B) of IPC Convicted Three years of One year
r/w Rigorous simple
Section(c) of Imprisonment and to imprisonment
Foreigners pay a fine of Rs.
Act, 1,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
Sl. Charged Conviction Sentence of default
No. Offence imprisonment sentence
5 120(B) of IPC Convicted Two years of 8 months
r/w Section 3 Rigorous simple
r/w 12(1)(a) Imprisonment and to imprisonment
of Passport pay a fine of Rs.
Act, 1967 10,000/-
2.Respondent Q Branch Police has received the secret
information in month of May 2015 about the conspiracy made
between appellant and other 5 accused in the above crime No.1 of
2015 to Rejuvenate the banned LTTE organization and in pursuance
of the conspiracy, appellant's said to have handed over 75 Cyanide
Capsules, 60 grams of Chemical which is being used for making
cyanide, GPS-4 to A1 Krishnakumar and directed him to go to
Srilanka in a ferry and hand over the same to one “Kavi” of
Srilankan Tamilan to reorganize the LTTE cadres and to eliminate
rival Tamil leaders. Therefore they made the vehicle search on
20.07.2015 at 20.30 hours in the Utchipuli Bus Stand in the
Ramanathapuram-Rameshwaram Main road and searched the
TATA Indica Car bearing Reg.No.TN 07 BK 3574 and found A1 to
A3 in the said car and seized the alleged 75 Cyanide Capsules, 60
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
grams of Chemical which is being used for making cyanide, GPS-4,
Cell Phone – 6, Indian Currency Rs.46,200/-, Sri Lankan Currency
Rs.19,300/- from A1, vehicle documents, mobile phone-2, State
Bank Passbook and other documents from A2, a mobile phone
recovered from A3. On further interrogation, it was found that the
said recovered Items were intended to be illegally smuggled out to
Sri Lanka to renew the banned Terrorist organization LTTE. On
basis of the confession the A1, A4, A5, A6's involvement was found
out and A4 was arrested on 25.07.2015 and from him a route map,
the list containing names of some leaders of Sri lanka, one sim card,
one Pendrive, one Cell Phone, a bag etc. were seized and further
search was made in his house at Chennai on 26.07.2015 and a hard
disk, simcard and other documents were seized. Thereafter Q
Branch completed the investigation by collecting the incriminating
materials, chemical reports, sanction and examining number of
witnesses and filed the final report before the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram by showing the appellant as A5
and the other accused No.6 as absconding. The learned Trial Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
had taken on file the final report in S.C.No. 7 of 2016 and on
application in Cr.M.P.No. 467 of 2016 and the case was split up by
order dated 15.02.2016 against the absconding accused No.5 and 6
in S.C.No.15 of 2016. Thereafter trial was conducted in the mother
S.C.No.7 of 2016 against A1, A2, A3, A4 and after the trial they were
convicted for the charged offence by the judgment dated 28.04.2018.
In mean time A6 was arrested on 25.10.2016 and separate trial was
conducted against him in S.C.No.15 of 2016 by splitting the S.C.No.
15 of 2016 against the present appellant in S.C.No. 2 of 2018 by
order dated 18.01.2018. In the said S.C.No.15 of 2016 the learned
Trial Judge acquitted said A5 under section 120(B), r/w 10 (1) (iv),
38(1) of the UAPA Act and convicted him under section 10(a)(iv) of
the UAPA Act and acquitted from the remaining charges. Thereafter
Q Branch Officers executed the nonbailable warrant issued against
the appellant on 16.12.2021. After the arrest, Q Branch Officers
conducted a search in his rental house on 04.01.2022 and 15.01.2022
and recovered material objects and documents marked and
proceeded the trial against the appellant before the learned trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
judge by examining the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.39 and marking
documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P102 and exhibiting the material objects
M.O.1 to M.O.75. After recording the evidence, the learned trial
judge questioned the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by
putting the incriminating materials available against him from the
prosecution evidence and documents and the appellant denied his
complicity and denied the same as false and submitted detailed
explanation. The learned trial judge considering the same and the
evidence on record convicted the appellant for the above stated
charged offences by passing the impugned judgment dated
18.07.2024.
3.Mr. S.Rajendrakumar, Learned counsel for Appellant and
Mr.Meenakshisundaram Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
made detailed submissions on many hearings submissions also
placed detailed written submission. Q Branch Officer also was
present before this Court and effectively assisted the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
4.Now the question is whether prosecution has proved the
case against the appellant to convict him under the charged offence?
5. The appellant conspired with the remaining accused to
revive the banned LTTE organization and handed over 75 cyanide
capsules, 600 grams of chemicals which is used for making cyanide
G.P.S., to A1 Krishnakumar in the month of 2015 and further
directed him to go to Sri Lanka in a ferry and to hand over the said
incriminating materials to one Mr.Kavi Sri Lankan in Sri Lanka,
who would re-organise the LTTE cadres, to eliminate the rival Tamil
Leaders. On receipt of the same, on 20.07.2015, when A1
Krishnakumar, in order to reach the coastal area of Rameshwaram
and to travel to Sri Lanka in a ferry travelled in TATA Indigo Car
bearing Registration No. TN-07-BK-3574 along with A2 and A3 with
the above incriminating material in a bag in Ramesahwaram Main
road. The respondent police intercepted them and arrested and
recovered the above incriminating material and registered the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
under Sections 10(a)(i), (iv) and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3(a) r/w 12(1) (a) of the Passport Act,
1967, Section 3 and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 6 of the
Poisons act, 1919 and Section 419 of IPC. During the investigation,
A1 confessed about involvement of the appellant and other two
accused. A4 was arrested and his confession also recorded and
incriminating material were recovered. Thereafter, the respondent
police continued the investigation and filed the final report by
arraigning the appellant as absconding accused No.5 and other
accused No.6, and trial was conducted in S.C.No.7 of 2016 against
A1 to A3 and conviction was passed. Split up trial was conducted
in S.C.No.15 of 2016 against A6. The learned trial Judge convicted
A6 under Section 10A(4) of the UAPA Act. The appellant was
arrested only on 16.12.2021. In the meantime, A1 to A4 preferred
appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.359 of 2018 before this Court against the
conviction in S.C.No.7 of 2016. The same was confirmed this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
6. After arrest of the appellant, on 16.12.2021, the police
custody was taken on two occasions on 14.01.2012 and 15.01.2012.
On the basis of his voluntary confession and on his disclosure, the
incriminating material were recovered. The recovery witness,
namely, Village Administrative Officer clearly deposed about the
recovery of incriminating material and the said incriminating
materials clearly shows that the appellant was associating himself in
the development of the banned LTTE organization in Sri Lanka.
When he is here in roaming in Tamilnadu in the territory of India,
where the LTTE was banned organization, he should not involve in
any form of the revival programme of the said organization in Sri
Lanka. The collected materials galore to show his intention to re-
organizes LTTE Cadre in Sri Lanka. Therefore, the offence under
above UAPA Act, is clearly made out against the appellant. P.W.8
and P.W.17 clearly deposed about his intention to revive the LTTE
Organization in Sri Lanka and for that purpose, he collected the
materials and sent through A1 to A3. The said part of the evidence
is cogent and also trustworthy. Two witnesses have categorically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
deposed about the organized Act of the appellant to revive the
banned LTTE organization in Sri Lanka by using the material from
the state of Tamil Nadu and the intention to revive LTTE
organization and it is corroborated by the documents recovered
from the appellant. He masqueraded himself as “Ranjan” where as
his name is “Sri” sri was a Honour name given by LTTE Top leader.
This Court finds no reason to differ with the learned trial Judge's
finding that sufficient evidence are available to prove the offences
under Sections 10(a)(i), (iv) and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 419 of IPC. The learned counsel
relied following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other
High Courts:
(i) In the case of Jyoti Babasaheb Chorge vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in Manu/MH/1637/2012
(ii) In the case of Thwaha fasal and ors. vs. Union of India
(UOI ) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1000/2021
(iii) In the case of Vernon vs.The State of Maharashtra and ors
reported in MANU/SC/0805/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
(iv) In the case of Mahesh Kariman Tirki and others Vs. State
of Maharashtra and G.N.Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra.
(v) In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Mahesh Kariman
Tirki & Ors in SLP (Criminal).No.10501/2024
whether he was a member of the banned organization is not
sufficient to convict the appellant under Sections 10(a)(i), (iv) and
38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. According to
the learned counsel for the appellant in this case, there was no
record produced to prove the membership. But, the evidence of the
appellant himself is that during the war they themselves voluntarily
surrendered before Sri Lankan Army and got the tender of pardon
from Srilankan Government and thereafter, they came to Tamil
Nadu. Therefore, it is implied from the above statement of the
appellant, he was member of the LTTE organization and after
arrival in Tamilnadu, he was vigorously participating in activities to
revive the LTTE Organization in Sri Lanka and therefore, he
committed the offences punishable under sections 10(a)(i), (iv) and
38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. To prove the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
TERRORIST Act, it is not necessary to adduce physical evidence,
when the materials collected by the investigating agency are
sufficient to infer his criminal intention to act contrary to the
provision of the UAPA Act, in the considered opinion of this Court,
it is sufficient to convict under Section 10(a)(i), (iv) and 38(1) of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
8. To counter of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that
this Court confirmed the conviction under the charged offence
against the A1 to A3 in Criminal Appeal(MD) No.359 of 2018,
confirming the conviction passed by the learned trial Judge in
C.C.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram, the learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that unless joint trial is conducted, confession of the co-
accused can never be used as a material under Section 10 of
Evidence Act and hence, the finding in the C.C.No.7 of 2016, has no
relevance. Quiet contrary, the learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that he made the submission on the basis of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
finding in the judgment of the other absconding co-accused in
C.C.No.15 of 2016, that there was no material available to prove the
conspiracy. Therefore, this Court finds dichotomy in the arguments
of the learned counsel for the appellant. This Court is not inclined to
place any reliance on the judgment of the co-accused and decides
the matter on merits on the basis of the material available record in
this case. That apart, it is the specific case of the investigating
agency that after arrest of the appellant in this case they conducted
further investigation and collected number of materials. Thereafter,
they filed supplementary final report and on the basis of the said
material, relevant charges were slapped under UAPA Act,
Foreigners Act, Passport Act and 419 of I.P.C., and they were
arrayed as accused. In the said specific circumstances of the case,
the finding in the earlier case relating to the co-accused is not
relevant to decide the available fresh material collected by the
investigating agency and produced by the prosecution agency,
during the course of the trial. Therefore, in this case sufficient
material is produced by the investigating agency and the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
marked without objection.
9.The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that,
the prosecution agency has not produced any material to prove any
Terrorist act, on the part of the appellant. This Court is unable to
subscribe to the said argument, when the material produced show
their intention to revive the LTTE organization in Sri Lanka, this
Court finds ingredients of the offence are made out. The latest
Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court on reference
answered in the case of Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, reported in
2023 (8) SCC 745 i.e. to pass conviction, he should be the member of
the organization and he continue in the illegal activities. In this case,
the membership is proved from the circumstances and he continued
the illegal activities by sending the incriminating material to Sri
Lanka to revive the LTTE organization. Hence, both ingredients are
made out in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The object of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, is to curtail any form of the
terrorism in India. The interpretation of provision and appreciation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
of the evidence is to be in such a way to achieve the object of the
Act. Therefore, this Court having considered the incriminating
material collected by investigating agency and going through the
entire materials holds that the intention of the appellant is to revive
the LTTE organization and it is clearly proved beyond reasonable
doubt. It is admitted fact that the LTTE organization is banned by
the Union Government in such situation, allowing the person to
support the LTTE organization in any form is offence.
9.1.The learned counsel for the appellant also would submit
that there was no clear proof for the name of the appellant as Sri @
Ranjan Gunabalasingam., on the basis of the contradiction between
the evidence of the witnesses before the trial of A1 to A3 in S.C.No.
2 of 2018 and present trial. It is true that P.W.8, P.W.7, P.W.6, P.W.5,
P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.27, P.W.28 and P.W.29 have not
deposed about the name of Sri @ Ranjan Gunabalasingam in the
earlier trial. In the present case, the above witnesses were re-
examined on the basis of the application filed by the Q Branch
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
Department to do the further investigation after the arrest of the
appellant. All the facts were subsequently found out by the
investigating agency and the investigation was conducted in the
said angle during the course of the further investigation. Therefore,
the witnesses disclosed about the particulars of the above name
change. The witnesses specifically stated that accused is member of
LTTE organization and he was honoured as “Sri” by the LTTE
organization, and the same was clearly proved through the evidence
of the above witnesses. The ground raised by the appellant that they
were examined belatedly and they made substantial improvement
during the course of this examination of the split up trial is not
accepted. It is settled law that merely because a witness has been
examined belatedly about a particular fact, it is not ground to
discard the same. Delay in the examining the witnesses on the part
of the investigation agency is not a ground to disbelieve their
version when their evidence is cogent and trustworthy. Reliability
of the witnesses who had been examined belatedly is to be tested on
facts of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
law to appreciate the witness examined belatedly by the
investigating agency:
In the case of Abuthagir v. State, reported in (2009) 17 SCC 208 at
page 216
28. Much emphasis has been laid by learned
counsel for the appellants on the alleged delayed
examination of the witnesses. It is well settled that
delay in examination of the prosecution witnesses
by the police during the course of investigation
ipso facto may not be a ground to create a doubt
regarding the veracity of the prosecution case.
10.The investigating agency conducted further investigation
and collected the material about the involvement of this appellant.
The deposition made by witness on the basis material collected
during the further investigation is acceptable and cannot be rejected
as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. In all aspects,
this Court finds no merit in the case and the learned trial Judge
correctly convicted the appellant for the alleged charged offences
under Sections 10(a)(i), (iv) and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
11.It is admitted case that Appellant came in the year 2009 to
India through Visa permitting to stay for a specific period. There
was no extension of Visa. In the said circumstance, the offence
under the Passport Act and also the foreigners Act are clearly made
out. Without any extension of visa period from 2009 onwards the
prosecution correctly laid the final report against the appellant
under Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act and Section 3r/w12(1)(a)
of the Passport Act. Therefore, they had illegally stayed in
Tamilnadu without getting extension of the Visa Period. Another
incriminating material is that the appellant had number of phones
and all the numbers have been obtained in different names. The
circumstance of obtaining number of phones in different names and
using various numbers and the phone contact with the persons
residing in Sri Lanka itself is a strong circumstance to infer his
intention to commit the offence. The prosecution was unable to find
out the names mentioned in the CDR particulars of Sri Lanka on
account of the absence of the Treaty between Sri Lanka and India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
and that can not be put against the investigating agency when the
appellant has not given any explanation for his contacts with
persons in Sri Lanka to show that the persons he contacted do not
belong to LTTE organization. When the prosecution produced the
material to show that he made contacts with some persons living in
Sri Lanka and they are involved in the revival of the LTTE
organization, it is the duty of the appellant to explain the
circumstances to show that he did not belong to the organization.
12.This Court finds that the recovery was proved from the
evidence on record that he supplied the materials, and the same was
disclosed by number of witnesses in this case. This Court has no
other option except to believe the evidence and accept the
prosecution case. This is split up case and in this case, appellant
intentionally absconded for many years and hence, the evidence
P.W.6 and other evidence is sufficient to hold that he only supplied
the said substance and hence, he is liable to be convicted under
Section 6 of the Poisonous Substance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
12.1.The prosecution witnesses clearly deposed about the
name of the appellant as “Sri”, but he was falsely pretending
himself as “Ranjan” and involved in the act of Terrorism in Tamil
Nadu. The only contention about the evidence of the witnesses is
that they never disclosed the said fact in any of the previous cases
of trials against the co-accused. This Court already observed that the
material adduced before this Court in the case is the basis material
to decide the culpability of the appellant. More particularly
investigating agency conducted further investigation and filed the
supplementary final report and the trial Court decided the matter .
Apart from that the evidence of the earlier case is not marked and
contradiction was extracted. It is settled principles of law that
contradiction should be elicited by following procedure stated in
section 145 of the Evidence Act and the same was not complied
with. Therefore this Court is unable to accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant that there was a contradiction on
account of the omission in the earlier trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
13.The learned counsel relied the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 87 that the principle of
estoppel also is applicable to the criminal case. According to the
learned counsel, in this case, evidence of the witnesses examined
during the co-accused trial made material improvement in the
present case which according to the counsel is estoppel. When the
material was collected on the basis of the further investigation and
the further statement, and when the evidence given by the witnesses
before the Court is against the appellant, there is no question of
estoppel. In this case, the precedent relied by the learned counsel is
also not applicable. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds
no merit in the appeal.
13.1.The learned counsel for the appellant submit that the
investigating agency committed procedural lapse in conducting test
Identification Parade and failed to follow the principles laid down
by this Court in “Murugaswamy Vs. State“. The investigating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
agency during the further investigation affirmed conspiracy at
Arasan bakery by re-examining the witness PW8 and PW9.
According to the counsel for appellant, appellant allegedly made
disclosure statement at the time of police custody about the place of
the conspiracy namely Arasan Bakery and hence to findout the
place, appellant was taken to arasan bakery along with PW 14. The
investigating Officer PW 29, to affirm the fact asked PW8 and PW9
and confirmed the statement made by the appellant and they
identified the appellant as Ranjan as Sri. PW 14 has not whispered
about the presence of the PW8 and PW9. Therefore, according to
the appellant's counsel the test identification parade was not
conducted as per law. The question of test identification parade has
not arisen in this case. PW 8 and PW9 are close associates of the
appellant in Trichy residence. As per Section 27 of Evidence Act
“disclosure of the place of the conspiracy” is also admissible as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Maharastra Vs. Damu and Others reported in 2000 6 SCC 269 para
35, that, 'recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
(Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872). The decision of the Privy Council
in Pulukuri Kottayya V. King Emperor is the most quoted authority for
supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged in the
section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the
knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate
distinctly to that effect' and the said was reiterated in Mehboob Ali
And Another vs. State of Rajastan reported in 2016 14 SCC 640,
Pattu Rajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2019 4 SCC 771,
Somasundaram Vs. State reported in 2020 7 SCC 722 and Asar
mohammed Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2019 12 SCC 253.
13.2.To prove the said disclosure statement and identification
of place of conspiracy, PW 14 was examined. He clearly deposed
about the voluntary disclosure statement and place of conspiracy. It
is not expected from him further affirmation of the said conspiracy
from the evidence of the PW8 and PW9. The evidence of PW14 is
relevant only to identify the place of the conspiracy. The
affirmation of the conspiracy is substantiated through evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
the PW8 and PW9. Therefore, argument of the learned counsel for
the appellant that there was lapse on the part of investigating
agency in the process of the test identification parade cannot be
accepted. Even otherwise lapse on the part of investigating agency
is not a ground to acquit the accused.
13.3. The learned counsel of the appellant would submit that
number of the witnesses namely LW 13, LW 14, were not examined
during the earlier investigation which is fatal to the prosecution.
This Court is unable to subscribe to the said submission. During the
course of the further investigation, it is prerogative of the
investigating agency to examine new witnesses and there is no bar
to examining new witnesses.
13.4.The learned counsel for the appellant would further
submit that PW 17, 18, 25, 8, 9, 10, have disclosed the involvement of
the appellant in this case by embellishing their version in this case
by introducing new facts other than the facts stated in the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
cases yielding to the pressure of the investigating agency and
therefore they are pressurised witnesses and hence their evidence is
liable to be rejected. This Court perused the deposition of the above
witnesses. They were subjected to the incisive cross examination
and nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence on the ground
that they were kept in duress. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel that the witnesses are pressurised to depose against
the appellant deserves to be rejected.
14.In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that
no material was adduced to prove that the appellant is a member of
banned organization, namely, LTTE and his name was Sri @ Ranjan
Gunabalasingam. His activity of terrorism in reviving of the LTTE
organization in Sri Lanka, by suppling the incriminating materials
with over stay at Tamil Nadu even after expiry of the period of Visa
in the year 2009 has been proved by the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
15.In the considered opinion of this Court prosecution has
proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and
the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
16.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal Stands dismissed. The
impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge in S.C.No.2 of
2018 dated 18.07.2024 is hereby confirmed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Q Branch, Ramanathapuram
3. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
sbn
Pre-delivery judgment made in
03.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:03:37 pm )
