Back
Calcutta HC: Hurling Bomb Equals Attempted Murder, 10-Year Sentence Stands in Poll Violence Case
In a stark reminder of election-time violence, the 's Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed the appeal of Sajal Maji, upholding his conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment for throwing a bomb at Byomkesh Mondal during 2008 Panchayat election campaigning in Birbhum. The blast led to the amputation of Mondal's left leg below the knee. The court also confirmed guilt under .
From Campaign Trail to Courtroom: The Explosive Incident
The incident unfolded on —the eve of Panchayat polls. Victim Byomkesh Mondal (PW6), returning from his shop with friend Dwarkesh Bauri (PW2), heard a bomb blast amid campaigning. As they passed a lane near Maji's house, the appellant allegedly emerged and lobbed a bomb at Mondal, shattering his left leg. Mondal's mother, Naku Bala Mandal (PW1), filed a prompt written complaint naming Maji and six others, though the formal FIR omitted Maji initially.
Trial in Sessions Case No. 166/2010 resulted in charges under , and Explosives Act Section 9B(2). Maji was convicted solely under 307 IPC and the Explosives Act, sentenced to 10 years RI and Rs. 5,000 fine; others were acquitted. Maji appealed via CRA (DB)/307/2024.
Defence Challenges Eyewitness Credibility, Prosecution Banks on Victim's Testimony
Maji's counsel highlighted discrepancies: the FIR's omission of his name, no assailant names in the medical report, minor inconsistencies in PW2's illiterate testimony, absence of Damodar Maji's interrogation (nearby resident), and lack of proof he threw the bomb. They argued no direct intent to murder, urging acquittal.
Prosecution leaned on robust eyewitness accounts—PW2 (with victim at blast), PW6 (injured victim), PW3 (brother, heard ), PW10 (local who aided Mondal). All named Maji. Trial judge, citing Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2023 SC 1736), vouched for the injured victim's unimpeachable testimony: presence undisputed, no false implication motive, no contradictions. Swift complaint and medical evidence corroborated from bomb blast.
Decoding Intent: Why a Bomb Throw Screams 'Murder Attempt'
The High Court dissected , which punishes acts done with intent or knowledge that, if causing death, would amount to murder under . Echoing
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab
(AIR 1961 SC 1782) and
State of M.P. v. Kashiram
(AIR 2009 SC 1642), Justices Banerjee and Ray ruled:
"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."
Actual murder intent unnecessary—knowledge suffices.
They dismissed defence points: victim's shock explained medical silence; PW2's minor slips irrelevant for a rustic witness; house proximity doesn't mandate witnessing. No defence witnesses or false-implication motive surfaced in Maji's statement. Bomb's lethality hit Section 300's second, third, and fourth clauses, making survival "providential."
As reported in legal circles, the bench observed that
"any reasonable person throwing a bomb at someone must be presumed to know that such an act is likely to cause death,"
reinforcing poll violence deterrence.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The presence of the injured eye witness victim was neither disputed nor doubted... There is no reason to discard the oral testimony of the injured witness."(Trial Court, affirmed by HC, para 14(a))
"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."(Trial Court, para 14(d))
"It is not in dispute that the victim suffered bomb blast injury and lost a major portion of his left leg... There is no reason for the victim or PW 2 to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant."(HC, para 17)
"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... it was providential that the victim did not die."(HC, para 25)
Verdict Locks In: Appeal Dismissed, Justice Served
The Division Bench found "no apparent infirmity," confirming conviction under and , with concurrent 10-year terms. Sentence deemed proportionate—no leniency for such brutality. This ruling fortifies reliance on injured victims' testimony in violent crimes and clarifies bomb use as inherent attempt to murder, potentially stiffening penalties in election-related assaults.
