“Delay in Framing Charge Under Section 324 IPC Not Fatal Where Prejudice Is Absent” – Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in 1983 Bomb Attack Case

“Presence of Eye-Witnesses, Medical Evidence, and Bomb Material Confirm Attempt to Murder” – Court Upholds Conviction Under Sections 324, 148, and 307/149 IPC

Introduction
In a judgment that reaffirms the weight of injured eyewitness testimony and the principle that minor procedural lapses do not vitiate criminal trials, the Calcutta High Court on 20th March 2025 upheld the conviction of Ram Kailash Singh and Musafir Rai in a decades-old case involving an alleged bomb attack during a property dispute in South Kolkata.

Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, delivering the judgment in CRA No. 354 of 1988 (Musafir Rai) and CRA No. 132 of 1988 (Ram Kailash Singh), dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts against the trial court’s decision of 1988. The Court found no error in the conviction for the offences under Sections 324 IPC, 148 IPC, and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, holding that "the delay in framing an additional charge under Section 324 IPC did not prejudice the defence, as all evidence and cross-examination were already on record."

Background: Land Dispute Escalates into Violence Involving Bombs

The genesis of the case lay in a property dispute involving two plots at 72/1 and 72/2 Topsia Road, South Kolkata, where a primary school operated out of a small shed. On 20th February 1983, the informant Bindya Rai was allegedly assaulted while cleaning the premises by Ram Kailash Singh and others. Soon after, a group of men, including Musafir Rai, allegedly arrived and launched a violent assault with bricks and bombs.

One of the victims, Dukhiram, succumbed to injuries two days later. Initially booked under Sections 148/149/307 IPC and sections of the Explosive Substances Act, the case was later extended to include Section 302 IPC. However, the trial court acquitted one accused and convicted three others—Ram Kailash Singh, Musafir Rai, and Siraj Prasad Singh—under Sections 324, 148, and 307/149 IPC. With Siraj Prasad Singh deceased during appeal, the present ruling dealt with only the remaining two.

Framing of Charge Under Section 324 IPC Before Judgment Not Invalid

The defence challenged the conviction of Ram Kailash Singh under Section 324 IPC on the ground that the charge was framed on the day of the judgment. The Court held that Section 216 CrPC permits alteration or addition of charges before pronouncement of judgment, and since no prejudice was caused, such addition was valid.

The Court noted:
“Since no further evidence was necessary on this point and the defence had already cross-examined witnesses in regard to the hurt caused by accused, framing of charge under Section 324 IPC was legally justified.”

Injured Eyewitnesses and Medical Corroboration Establish Offence

The evidence of injured witness Ram Singh (PW13) proved crucial. He testified that Ram Kailash Singh attacked him with a crowbar, causing deep head and facial injuries. Medical Officer PW20 confirmed the injuries and treatment with seven stitches.

The Court observed:
“The testimony of an injured witness carries high probative value and, when corroborated by medical evidence, is difficult to discard.”
Citing State of U.P. v. Naresh, the Court reiterated that injured witnesses have no reason to falsely implicate others.

Several other witnesses (PWs 1, 9, 10, 11) supported the assault narrative and remained consistent during cross-examination. The Court rejected the argument that family rivalry tainted the evidence, stating that multiple consistent testimonies cannot be brushed aside merely on suspicion of enmity.

Conviction Under Section 307/149 IPC Upheld Despite Lack of Specific Charge

The most contentious issue was the conviction under Section 307/149 IPC despite no specific charge being framed under that section. Relying on Section 222(3) CrPC, the Court held that an accused can be convicted for attempt to commit an offence even if not specifically charged, as long as the primary charge (in this case Section 302 IPC) was framed.

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pandharinath v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 14 SCC 537, affirming that:
“When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.”

It was proved through eyewitnesses (PWs 3, 4, 5) and the IO (PW21) that the accused instigated and participated in a group assault wherein bombs were hurled at victim Dukhiram, causing critical injuries. Medical and forensic reports confirmed the presence of explosive materials. Though Dukhiram died two days later, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove death was caused directly by the bomb attack. Therefore, the trial court rightly invoked Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) instead of Section 302.

The Court noted:
“There is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused took active part in directing bombs to be hurled with the intention to kill. Therefore, conviction under Section 307/149 IPC is sustainable.”

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the appeals of Ram Kailash Singh and Musafir Rai, upheld their convictions, and directed them to surrender within two weeks. If they fail, non-bailable warrants are to be issued.

The judgment reasserts vital principles of criminal jurisprudence: altered charges can be validly added pre-judgment under Section 216 CrPC, eye-witness testimony—especially of injured persons—deserves great weight, and attempts to commit crimes can be punished even if the original offence isn’t proven in full.

Date of Decision: 20.03.2025