‘Providential victim survived’: Calcutta High Court upholds 10-year term in 2008 panchayat poll bomb attack

The bench heard the matter on April 23.

The Calcutta High Court added that if an act is done with the intention of causing such injury to the victim as the offender knows may or is likely to cause death of that person, it would amount to murder if the person dies, and attempt to murder if the person survives with injuries.

Panchayat election campaign, bomb attack

The prosecution argued before the Calcutta High Court that on the day of the alleged incident, the victim, Byomkesh Mondal, was returning from his shop along with his friend Dwarkesh Bauri.

At that time, campaigning was going on for the panchayat election. Byomkesh and his friend heard the sound of a bomb blast. Byomkesh and his friend heard the sound of a bomb blast. A few moments later, when they were crossing a lane that led to the house of the appellant, the appellant threw a bomb at Byomkesh.

It was argued before the Calcutta High Court that the bomb blast caused serious injury to his left leg from the knee downwards. As a result, that leg had to be amputated. The incident occurred on May 17, 2008, the eve of the panchayat election in West Bengal.

In August 2024, the additional sessions judge in Suri, Birbhum, found Maji guilty under Section 307(attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 9B (2) (punishment for certain offences) of the Indian Explosive Act. He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000.

In the trial court, the Calcutta High Court was informed, the defence argued that the appellant’s claim that nobody saw the appellant throwing the bomb at the victim had no merit since both eyewitnesses and the injured victim clearly stated that the appellant had hurled a bomb at the victim.

Calcutta High Court findings

• The prosecution was required to establish that the accused persons hurled a bomb at the victim.
• In the present case, the appellant clearly intended to cause bodily injury to the victim; otherwise, he would not have hurled the bomb at the victim.
• It is not in dispute that the victim suffered a bomb blast injury and lost a major portion of his left leg. It is also not anybody’s case that the bomb blast was an accident.
• The bomb blast caused grievous injury to the victim’s left leg. Consequently, his left leg had to be amputated.
• The presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and that he hurled the bomb at the victim has been clearly established by the evidence of eye witness who was with the victim at the relevant time and the evidence of the injured victim himself.
• The learned Trial Judge rightly concluded that in the facts of the case, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the evidence of the injured victim. We agree with the Judge.
• It is fairly established that the bomb was thrown at the victim by somebody. There is no reason for the victim to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant. That is not normal human conduct.

• The defence did not examine any witness. The entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC. The appellant did not even suggest that there was any reason for falsely implicating him.
• The appellant would also fall foul of the 4th limb of the definition of murder in Section 300, and on that ground, he would also be guilty of attempt to murder.
• The trial court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC. There is also no error in the conviction of the appellant under Section 9B (2) of the Indian Explosive Act.
• The evidence in the record clearly establishes that the appellant hurled a bomb at the victim.