Mr. Counsel, both PW-8 and PW-9 admitted that they did not mention the name 'Ranjan' in earlier trials. They also admitted that they were illegally staying in India on forged documents. Their own conduct is highly suspicious. How can you rely on their testimony?

My Lord, the fact that the witnesses were staying illegally in India does not automatically render their testimony false. They were not the accused in this case. They had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. As for not mentioning the name 'Ranjan' earlier, this is a case of belated disclosure, not material improvement. The witnesses were not specifically asked about the alias in earlier trials. When they were asked in this trial, they disclosed it. The High Court correctly applied Abuthagir. The core of their testimony — that the appellant came to the house and handed over cyanide capsules — is consistent and corroborated. The minor discrepancy about the alias does not destroy their credibility.

The landlady and neighbours — cited by the prosecution as corroborative witnesses — actually said they knew the appellant only as 'Ranjan', not 'Sri'. How does that support the prosecution?

My Lord, the landlady and neighbours were not witnesses to the handing over of cyanide capsules. Their testimony is relevant only to establish that the appellant was residing at the address and that he was known as 'Ranjan'. The prosecution's case is that 'Ranjan' is the alias used by 'Sri' to conceal his identity. The fact that neighbours knew him as 'Ranjan' does not contradict the prosecution's case — it is consistent with it. The prosecution never claimed that he was known as 'Sri' to his neighbours; 'Sri' was an honorific name within the LTTE.

The I.O. admitted that the name 'Ranjan' does not appear anywhere in the FIR or charge-sheet or any police record prior to the appellant's arrest. The only place it appears is after his arrest. How do you explain that?

My Lord, the name 'Ranjan' did not appear in the records because the investigating agency did not know the alias until the appellant's arrest. The absconding accused was known as 'Sri' from the statements of PW-8 and PW-9. It was only after the appellant's arrest and his voluntary disclosure that the investigating agency came to know that 'Sri' was using the alias 'Ranjan'. The I.O. explained that 'Sri' was an honorific name given to him within the LTTE. The absence of the name 'Ranjan' in earlier records does not prove that the appellant is not 'Sri'; it merely proves that the investigating agency did not discover the alias earlier.

If the appellant was an absconding accused being actively searched for since 2016, why could the police not find him for over five years despite his open residence at a registered address? Does that not indicate that the investigation was flawed?

My Lord, the investigating agency did not know that 'Sri' was using the alias 'Ranjan'. They were searching for a person named 'Sri'. The appellant was residing under the name 'Ranjan'. The fact that they could not connect 'Ranjan' to 'Sri' earlier is not a flaw in the investigation; it is a testament to how effectively the appellant concealed his identity. The appellant was operating under a false identity, and it took time for the investigating agency to uncover the connection. The delay does not prove his innocence; it proves that he was successfully hiding.

For RespondentCriminal Premium

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 516

Core 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.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

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 Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in