The oral testimony of an injured witness carries high credibility and suffices for conviction under Section 307 IPC.

The victim, Byomkesh Mondal (PW 6), was returning from his shop during a Panchayat election campaign on May 17, 2008, when the appellant emerged from an alley and hurled a bomb at him

The blast caused severe injuries to the victim's left leg, necessitating amputation

A written complaint naming the appellant was filed by the victim’s mother (PW 1) on the same day

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 9B(2) of the Indian Explosive Act, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of minor discrepancies in witness testimony and the fact that his name was missing from the formal FIR despite being in the initial written complaint

1. Whether the oral testimony of an injured eye-witness (PW 6) and a companion eye-witness (PW 2) is sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt despite minor discrepancies

2. Whether the act of hurling a bomb at a person satisfies the ingredients of "Attempt to Murder" under Section 307 IPC

The court primarily applied Section 307 of the IPC regarding attempt to murder and Section 300 (Murder) to establish the necessary "knowledge" and "intention"

It relied on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2023 SC 1736) regarding the high evidentiary value and credibility of injured witnesses

Furthermore, it applied principles from State of M.P. v. Kashiram (AIR 2009 SC 1642) and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (AIR 1961 SC 1782), which establish that actual intention to kill is not mandatory if the offender has knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous it could cause death

It also applied Section 9B(2) of the Indian Explosive Act regarding the illegal use of explosives

The High Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured witness (PW 6) occupies a privileged evidentiary status because such a person is unlikely to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent party

The court found that the appellant's presence at the scene was established by PW 2 and PW 6, and corroborated by PW 3 and PW 10, to whom the victim identified the assailant immediately after the blast

The court rejected the defense's argument regarding minor discrepancies, noting that PW 2 was illiterate and such variations did not touch the substance of the case

Applying the law to the facts, the court reasoned that hurling a bomb at a person constitutes an act with the knowledge that it is imminently dangerous and likely to cause death, thereby satisfying the fourth limb of Section 300 read with Section 307 IPC

It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant hurled the bomb with the requisite knowledge/intention under Section 307 IPC

The sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 5000 were confirmed as being proportionate to the gravity of the offense; Case and connected applications were dismissed