Calcutta High Court Confirms 10-Year Sentence For Attempt To Murder After Man Hurls Bomb During 2008 Panchayat Poll Campaign

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and 10-year sentence of a man found guilty of hurling a bomb at another person during Panchayat election campaigning in Birbhum, observing that any reasonable person throwing a bomb at someone must be presumed to know that such an act is likely to cause death.A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed the appeal filed by Sajal Maji against his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9B(2) of the Indian Explosives Act.The Court held that actual intention to kill is not always necessary to attract Section 307 IPC if the act is so imminently dangerous that death is a likely consequence.“Any person of reasonable intelligence hurling a bomb at another person would be deemed to have knowledge that such an act is likely to kill that other person. This would be sufficient to attract Section 307 of IPC.”BackgroundAs per the prosecution case, the incident occurred on May 17, 2008, on the eve of Panchayat elections. Victim Byomkesh Mondal was returning from his shop with his friend Dwarkesh Bauri when they heard a bomb blast.Shortly thereafter, while passing through a lane leading to the appellant's house, the accused allegedly came running out and hurled a bomb at the victim. The blast caused severe injuries to the victim's left leg, which ultimately had to be amputated below the knee.A written complaint was lodged the same day by the victim's mother.The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000. Other accused persons named in the case were acquitted for lack of evidence.High Court's FindingsThe High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence and noted that the prosecution case stood firmly established through the testimony of the injured victim and an eyewitness accompanying him.The Bench reiterated that the evidence of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value and ordinarily cannot be discarded lightly.“There is no reason for the victim or PW 2 to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant. That is not normal human conduct.”The Court also noted that the victim's brother and another local witness deposed that immediately after the incident, the victim named the appellant as the person who hurled the bomb.Rejecting the defence argument regarding minor discrepancies in witness depositions, the Bench held that such inconsistencies did not affect the core prosecution story.The Court examined Section 307 IPC and the definition of murder under Section 300 IPC and held that throwing a bomb at a person clearly demonstrated intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.“The intended injury was sufficient to cause death of the victim in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, the appellant attempted to murder the victim.”The Court further observed that it was “providential” that the victim survived.Upholding the punishment imposed by the Sessions Court, the Bench held that the sentence was neither disproportionate nor unreasonable considering the gravity of the offence.Accordingly, the criminal appeal and connected application were dismissed.Case Title: Sajal Maji v. The State of West BengalCase No.: CRA (DB)/307/2024Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court Confirms 10-Year Sentence For Attempt To Murder After Man Hurls Bomb During 2008 Panchayat Poll Campaign

Srinjoy Das

Tags