The testimony of an injured eyewitness is highly credible, and a conviction for attempted murder is sustainable if the act is inherently dangerous and performed with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, without requiring proof of a specific intent to kill.

Judgment :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated August 27, 2024 and August 29, 2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st Court Suri at Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 02 (5) 2023 arising out of Sessions Case No. 166 of 2010, whereby the appellant was convicted of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 9B (2) of the Indian Explosive Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The appellant was also fined in the sum of Rs. 5000/-.

2. In short, the prosecution case is that on the day of the alleged incident, the victim Byomkesh Mondal (PW 6) was returning from his shop along with his friend Dwarkesh Bauri (PW 2). At that time campaigning was going on for Panchayat election. Byomkesh and his friend heard the sound of a bomb blast. A few moments later, when they were crossing a lane which led to the house of the appellant, the appellant threw a bomb at Byomkesh. The bomb blast caused serious injury to his left leg from knee downwards. As a result, that leg had to be amputated.

3. The alleged incident occurred on May 17, 2008. On the same date a written complaint was filed by Byomkesh’s mother Naku Bala Mandal, (PW - 1). On the basis of such complaint, formal FIR was lodged. The written complaint specifically named the appellant and 6 other accused persons. In the formal FIR, however, the appellant was not mentioned.

4. Charge was framed by the learned Trial Judge under four heads as follows:-

1. Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code- Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.

2. Section 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

3. Section 307/149 of IPC- Attempt to murder.

4. Section 9B (2) of the Indian Explosive Act.

5. The appellant pleaded to be ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The defence examined none.

7. PW 1 being the de facto complainant and the mother of the victim (Byomkesh) deposed that on the relevant day she was at home. She heard a bomb blast. Soon thereafter Byomkesh was brought to her house in an injured and unconscious condition. Thereafter Byomkesh was taken to the hospital. The injured leg was amputated. She more or less repeated in the witness box what she had said in the written complaint.

8. P.W. 2, i.e., Dwarkesh Bauri being the person with whom Byomkesh was returning from his shop, deposed that election campaigning was going on at the relevant time. He and Byomkesh heard a bomb blast. Soon thereafter the appellant came out running from an alley and threw a bomb at Byomkesh. The bomb blast injured his left leg severely which required amputation. PW 2 specifically named the appellant and the other accused persons. He also identified them on the dock in court.

9. PW 3 Kumarish Mondal is the brother of the victim. He said, inter alia that the victim told him that the appellant had hurled a bomb at him which caused the injury.

10. PW 6 was the victim. He specifically named the appellant as the person who hurled the bomb at him. As regards injury, he said the same thing as the other witnesses have said.

11. PW 10 is a resident of the same locality as Byomkesh. He deposed that the date of occurrence was the day before Panchayat election and the accused persons were campaigning from door to door. He suddenly heard the sound of bomb explosion. He went out of his house and found Byomkesh lying inj