Conviction for Attempt to Murder Under Section 307 IPC Upheld: Calcutta HC Affirms Reliability of Injured Eyewitness Testimony - 2026-04-23

Justice for the Amputated: Calcutta High Court Upholds Bomb Attack Conviction

In a final determination regarding a brutal 2008 election-period incident, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of Sajal Maji for an attempt to murder. The case, involving a bomb attack that cruelly resulted in the amputation of the victim’s leg, reinforces the judiciary's stance on the immense weight of testimony provided by injured eyewitnesses.

A Campaign Trail Turned Tragic

The incident dates back to May 17, 2008, during the height of a Panchayat election campaign in Birbhum. The victim, Byomkesh Mondal, was walking with his friend, Dwarkesh Bauri (PW 2), when they encountered a sudden explosion. According to the prosecution, the appellant, Sajal Maji, emerged from an alley and hurled a bomb directly at the victim. The force of the blast caused severe injuries to Mondal's left leg, leading to a permanent, life-altering amputation.

Following the incident, the victim’s mother filed a complaint naming several individuals, though the appellant was not initially noted in the formal FIR. The trial court later framed charges under Sections 148, 326/149, and 307/149 of the IPC , alongside the Indian Explosive Act.

Legal Sparring: Direct Testimony vs. Procedural Doubts

The defense argued that the victim failed to disclose the assailant's name to the medical officer at the time of initial examination and highlighted the omission of the appellant's name in the formal FIR. They contended that no one actually "saw" the bomb being thrown.

However, the prosecution presented a robust chain of evidence, led by the testimonies of the victim (PW 6), his friend (PW 2), and a local bystander (PW 10). The court noted that the victim, having suffered such catastrophic injuries, would have no reason to shield the actual perpetrator and falsely accuse an innocent party.

The Court’s Reasoning: The "Sanctity" of the Injured Witness

The Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s findings. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as * Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra *, the court held that an injured witness’s testimony carries the highest degree of reliability.

The court further addressed the legal standard for Section 307 . Citing Om Prakash v. State of Punjab and State of M.P. v. Kashiram , the bench established that any person of reasonable intelligence who throws a bomb must be deemed to have the "knowledge" that such an act is likely to cause death, even if a direct, specific intention to kill is not explicitly proven.

Key Observations

The High Court’s judgment underscored several critical legal principles:

• "The credibility of the oral testimony of an injured witness remains at the highest level. A person who has lost his leg will never shield the real culprit and falsely implicate another person."
• "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."
• "It is not mandatory for an injured victim to divulge the names of the assailants to the examining doctor."
• "Actual intention to commit murder is not a necessary ingredient of the offence of attempt to murder; knowledge of the consequences is sufficient under ."

Final Decision

The High Court categorically dismissed the appeal, confirming the ten-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000imposed by the trial court. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that while the judicial process allows for rigorous cross-examination, the direct, clear evidence of a victim surviving a violent crime remains an ironclad foundation for conviction, regardless of minor procedural discrepancies in the early stages of investigation. The decision closes a years-long case, finalising justice for the victim.