- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
D. Gopalakrishnan v. Sadanand Naik And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Fourteen employees of Madras Rubber Factory (MRF) in Ponda, Goa, were tried for offences arising out of a violent incident on 13 March 1987. During an ongoing strike, the accused allegedly entered the company’s guest house “Vailankani” at Miramar and assaulted Chennai-based supervisors lodged there. One supervisor, Venugopal, later died of his injuries on 25 March 1987. The Sessions Court convicted six accused of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 325 and 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted A-7 under related provisions.
The Bombay High Court reversed the convictions of seven accused, primarily on the ground that their identification by eyewitnesses was unreliable. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s assessment of the identification evidence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the eyewitness identification of the accused was reliable and legally admissible, given that the police showed the witnesses an album of employee photographs during investigation and no formal identification parade was held.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the Bombay High Court’s order of acquittal on the ground that its appreciation of evidence was perverse or manifestly erroneous.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Showing photographs to witnesses is a legally permissible method of identification; there is no statutory bar against it in India.
- The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (U.K.) allows the use of photographs under certain conditions, demonstrating international acceptance of the practice.
- The Sessions Court correctly found that the eyewitnesses had prior opportunity to observe the accused during the strike near the factory gate and therefore properly identified them.
Respondents' Arguments
- The eyewitnesses had no prior acquaintance with the accused and were exposed to a photo album containing names, which tainted the identification process.
- No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, rendering the identification evidence weak and unreliable.
- The High Court’s view that the identification was doubtful is a plausible appreciation of evidence that should not be disturbed in appeal against acquittal.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged the absence of statutory guidelines in India on showing photographs during investigation but stressed that the practice must not compromise a fair and proper investigation. The investigating officer in this case presented an album containing photographs with names written underneath to witnesses while recording their Section 161 CrPC statements. The Court found this procedure unjustified because:
- It risks leading witnesses and influencing their memory, especially where they have not first provided independent descriptions of the assailants.
- If suspects are available for a formal identification parade or video identification, photographs should not be shown in advance.
The Court concurred with the High Court that the eyewitnesses, who travelled to the factory by vehicle and allegedly saw the striking workers only in passing, lacked a reliable basis for later identification. Finding the High Court’s evaluation of evidence neither perverse nor unreasonable, the Supreme Court held that appellate interference with an order of acquittal was unwarranted.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed – Acquittal Upheld.
The immediate consequence is that the seven respondents remain acquitted of all charges. The judgment underscores the importance of fair identification procedures and cautions investigators against relying solely on photographic identification without prior descriptions or formal identification parades. No new legal precedent was expressly created, but the decision reinforces existing principles governing appellate review of acquittals and the probative value of identification evidence.
K.G Balakrishnan, J.— These appeals are filed against the acquittal of seven persons by the High Court of Bombay reversing the conviction passed by the Sessions Court, Panaji. Altogether, fourteen accused were tried by the Sessions Judge and out of them six were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 325 and 304 Part II read with Section 49 IPC. A-7 Arthur Viegas was found guilty for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC.
2. 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 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 the prosecution, on 13-3-1987, at about 9.15 p.m, the accused persons came there with lathis, rods and chains and attacked the supervisors who had come from Chennai. Some of the accused attacked one Venugopal with iron rods and lathis. They also assaulted D. Gopalakrishnan and Danial. When these persons called out for help, the accused persons left the place immediately.
3. PW 10 E.M Mathai, General Manager of MRF at Ponda, was informed of the incident and he came to 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 25-3-1987. The police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. The Sessions Judge found the accused guilty as aforestated 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 eyewitnesses had 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 Gopalakrishnan, PW 7 Danial Thomas and PW 8 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. PW 5 William Johnson is one of the eyewitnesses 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 D'Costa.
5. The learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that the eyewitnesses were questioned by the police officer with an album and the photographs were shown to them and at that time, Section 161 statements were recorded. The respondent's learned counsel relied on the statement of PW 10 E.M Mathai, General Manager who deposed that the police officer wanted the photographs of the employees and he had been given instruction to give it on the same day and PW 13 investigating officer, who registered the complaint made by PW 10 E.M Mathai, General Manager deposed that PW 10 General Manager had supplied the photographs of the striking workers of MRF on 14-3-1987 itself and that he had shown the photographs to the witnesses while recording their statements. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted in this case.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that showing of photographs to the witnesses for the purpose of identification is permissible under law. He even drew our attention to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 which is in force in England and submitted that the provisions of the said statute permit the showing of photographs to the witnesses for the purpose of identification and there is nothing in law which prohibits such action being taken by the investigating officer. In the instant case, the witnesses had not described the physical features of the accused or any identifying characteristics as to how they identified the assailants. To such a witness, showing of photograph would only lead the investigating officer to make the wrong conclusion regarding the identification. Even under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 which is prevalent in England, the photographs could be shown to the witnesses only under certain specified conditions. Annexe E of the Act are the guidelines and it says that before showing the photographs of the suspect, the supervising officer must first confirm that the description of the suspect given by the witness has been recorded, and if the supervising officer is unable to confirm the description, the officer shall postpone the showing of the photographs. The other condition as stated in Annexe E of the statute says that a witness must not be shown photographs or computerised or artist's composite or similar likeness or pictures if the identity of the suspect is known to the police and the suspect is available to take part in a video identification, an identification parade or group identification.
7. 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 eyewitnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. 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 photograph 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 has 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.
9. The criminal appeals are without any merits and they are dismissed.
Alert