LexD. GOPALAKRISHNAN versus SADANAND NAIK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A D. GOPALAKRISHNAN v. SADANAND NAIK AND ORS. OCTOBER 15, 2004 B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Criminal Law: Identification of accused-During investigation police showing C photographs of the accused with names written underneath, to witnesses and recording their statements uls 161 Cr.PC-Held, procedure adopted by police is not justified-Not a fit case to interfere with acquittal recorded by High Court-Procedure for showing photographs to witnesses-Explained-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s.161-Investigation. D During strike in a branch of a company in Goa, some of the striking employees were said to have attacked the supervisors, who had been posted there from Chennai branch a few days back to train new employees. One of the victims later died.in the hospital. The trial court found the accused- respondents guilty of the offences charged. In appeal before the High Court, E it was contended for the accused that during the investigation the Police Officer showed the witnesses an album containing photographs of the striking employees with the names written underneath and recorded their statements under s.161 Cr.P.C. and, as such, the investigation and the trial were vitiated. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved, the F State filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 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. There are no G 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. During the course of the investigation, if the witnesses had given the identifying features of the assailants, the same could be confirmed by the H 520 D. GOPALAKRISHNAN v. SADANAND NAIK [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 521 investigating officer by showing the photographs of the suspect and the A 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. [524-B-C; 523-H; 524-AJ 2. In the. instant case, the witnesses had not described the physical B 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 identification. [523-E) 3. The High Court held that the witnesses had no occasion to properly i~entify 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 they saw a group of workers while travelling, it may not be easier to identify them. It cannot be said that the High. Court has made a perverse appreciation C. of evidence. The view taken by the High Court is plausible. This is not a fit D case to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. (524-DJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1197- 1203 of 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.97 of the Bombay High Court at Panaji in Crl. A. Nos. 20-25 and 38 of 1996. K. V. Vishwanathan, K. V. Venkataraman and B. Raghunath for the Appellant. U.U. Lalit, Arun Pednekar, Nitin Sangra, V.D. Khanna and Ms. A. Subhashini with him for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E F K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. These appeals are filed against the acquittal G of 7 persons by the High Court of Bombay reversing the conviction passed by the Sessions Court, Panaji. Altogether, 14 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 !PC. H 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A 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 C'f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.