D GOPALAKRISHAN Vs. SADANAND NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against the acquittal 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, 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 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 who 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.) PW-10 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 25-3-1987. 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.