Appellant Is Absconding Accused 'Sri', Conviction Proper — (2026) INSC 516
The trial court and High Court have concurrently found that the appellant — who was known as 'Ranjan' — is the same as the absconding accused 'Sri' (A-5).
Sri v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu — (2026) INSC 516Core Argument
The trial court and High Court have concurrently found that the appellant — who was known as 'Ranjan' — is the same as the absconding accused 'Sri' (A-5). Two independent witnesses identified him as the person who handed over cyanide capsules to co-accused Krishnakumar in May 2015. The minor discrepancies in their testimony are natural given the passage of time. The conviction under the UAP Act should be upheld.
Key Precedents
- Abuthagir v. State (2009) 17 SCC 208 — Held that mere belated disclosure of a particular fact by a witness is not, by itself, a ground to discard such testimony, provided the evidence is otherwise cogent and credible.
Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.
Already subscribed? Sign in
BENCH QUESTION
What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?
OPPOSITION COUNTER
The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...
Unlock the Argument Simulator
4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.
Available on Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.
Upgrade to Annual PlanDisclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in