Case: D. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Sadanand Naik

In February, 1987, the employees of Madras Rubber Factory (hereinafter being referred to as MRF) at Ponda in Goa went on strike and the accused persons were members of that striking group of employees. The management of the MRF recruited some new persons as employees and in order to give them training, some senior supervisors working in the factory of MRF at Chennai were brought to Goa and these persons were given accommodation by the company at its guest house Vailankani situated at Miramar. They were staying in flats which formed part of the guest house. According to prosecution, on 13.3.1987, at about 9.15 p.m., the accused persons came there with lathies, rods and chains and attacked the supervisors and had come from Chennai. Some of the accused attacked one Venugopal with iron rods and lathies. They also assaulted D. Gopalakrishnan and Danial. When these persons called out for help, the accused persons left the place immediately.3. PW10 E.M. Mathai, General Manager of MRF at Ponda, was informed of the incident and he came to the Vailankani guest house. The injured were shifted to GMC Hospital. Injured Venugopal was in serious condition and he was shifted to Vaidya Hospital at Panaji where he died on 25.3.1997. The police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. The Sessions Judge found the accused guilty as afore-stated and he was of the opinion that the accused were properly identified by the injured persons who were examined as prosecution witnesses. The High Court reversed this finding on the ground that the witnesses including the injured witnesses had no previous acquaintance with the accused persons and their identification was extremely doubtful. This finding is challenged before us.4. The Sessions Court held that the injured persons who were examined as eye-witnesses had an occasion to see the accused persons who were also the members of the striking employees and were often seen sitting near the security gate of the factory shouting slogans. The witnesses who had been going to the factory had an opportunity to see them and in that way all the accused had been identified properly by the witnesses. PW 6 Gopal Krishnan, PW7 Danial Thomas and PW8 C. Ravindranath are the witnesses who were examined to prove the incident. These witnesses deposed that they had been working at the MRF factory situated at Ponda for about 25 days. PW5 William Johnson is one of the eye-witnesses who deposed that the Police Officer showed him several photographs in an album with the names of the persons written underneath and he immediately identified accused A-3 Gokuldas Babi Gaonkar and A-12 Cypriano DCosta.

Reasoning: There are no statutory guidelines in the matter of showing photographs to the witnesses during the stage of investigation. But nevertheless, the police is entitled to show photographs to confirm whether the investigation is going on in the right direction. But in the instant case, it appears that the investigating officer procured the album containing the photographs with the names written underneath and showed this album to the eye-witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The procedure adopted by the police is not justified under law as it will affect fair and proper investigation and may sometimes lead to a situation where wrong persons are identified as assailants. During the course of the investigation, if the witness had given the identifying features of the assailants, the same could be confirmed by the investigating officer by showing the photographs of the suspect and the investigating officer shall not first show a single photographs but should show more than one photograph of the same person, if available. If the suspect is available for identification or for video identification, the photograph shall never be shown to the witness in advance.8. In the instant case, the High Court held that the witnesses had no occasion to properly identify the assailants as they had no previous acquaintance with them. The witnesses had been travelling in a vehicle while going to the factory, and if a group of workers were seen by them while travelling, it may not be easier for them to identify them. It cannot be said that the High Court had made a perverse appreciation of evidence, and the view taken is plausible and this is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the acquittal passed by the High Court.