'Are Eyewitnesses Supposed To Measure Injuries?': Supreme Court On Bombay HC Order Granting Bail In Murder Case

The Supreme Court today deprecated a Bombay High Court order granting bail to 2 persons accused of assaulting and causing death of a Scheduled Caste member over a land dispute.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a plea filed by the deceased man's wife, assailing the grant of bail to the respondent-accused. After hearing the counsels for the parties, the bench reserved its orders.

"What's the reason given by High Court? Specific allegations not there? How can bail be granted in such a case? There are 8 injuries and 6 assailants. Indiscriminate beating in the middle of the market. How does it expect? Eyewitnesses have photographic memory? They are suppose to measure the injuries?" remarked Justice Mehta.

When the respondent's counsel contended that there was no specific statement about who inflicted what injury, the judge remarked, "how can you expect an eyewitness to narrate that? Can that be a ground in such a case?"

On a specific court query, the petitioner's counsel informed that respondent No.1 remained in jail for 6 months. The Court was further informed that charges in the case have been framed. "You go back inside", Justice Nath told the respondent's counsel.

In response to this, the respondent's counsel submitted that the respondent has been on bail for 3 years and has not flouted any of the conditions. She further contended that the trial is not likely to get concluded in the near future.

When she again pressed that from the FIR as well, it cannot be ascertained as to who caused what injury, Justice Mehta commented, "it is not required when Sections 147, 148 and 149 apply...why specific act is required to be mentioned?"

Another submission by the counsel that there was no recovery effected from the respondent also did not weigh with the bench. "Recovery is only for corroboration", said Justice Mehta. Reserving orders, the bench noted that the informant (petitioner) was an injured eyewitness.

Background

The petitioner and her family belong to Hindu Mahadeo Koli caste. In 2022, she used to reside with her husband and daughter, and they had a parcel of land adjacent to the land of the accused.

In August, 2022, when the petitioner's husband went to drop their daughter to school, he was allegedly assaulted by 6 men using iron rods and sticks infront of a shop. The petitioner, alongwith other relatives, reached the spot and tried to intervene, but they were also injured and abused on the basis of caste. Apparently, 3 accused (including the respondents) took out their pants and insulted the petitioner by making casteist remarks.

A case was registered against the accused under Sections 302, 354, 294, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In January, 2023, the Special Court rejected the respondents' prayer for regular bail. Assailing the dismissal, they approached the Bombay High Court.

In March, the High Court granted bail to the respondents, noting inter-alia that specific allegations as to which accused caused what injury to the deceased were not apparent from the record. It was also observed that there was a long standing rivalry between the parties and certain co-accused had been granted bail.

Case Title: SHOBHA NAMDEV SONAVANE Versus SAMADHAN BAJIRAO SONVANE AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 12440/2023