Supreme Court Modifies Conviction in 1981 Bombing Case: Sentences Reduced Under Section 304 Part II IPC

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dilip Shaw @ Sanatan & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal, ruled on a long-pending criminal appeal involving a 1981 bombing incident in Howrah, West Bengal. The appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other related provisions. The Supreme Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing the sentence from ten years to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on March 25, 1981, in Howrah, where a violent clash led to the bombing of a group of individuals. The altercation resulted in the death of Gurdev Singh and injuries to several others. The appellants, along with others, were initially acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah, in 1987. However, the High Court of Calcutta reversed this decision in 2009, convicting the accused under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellants challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that their involvement did not amount to murder and that they should not have been convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants, Dilip Shaw and others, raised the following key arguments:

• “There was no intention to cause the death of Gurdev Singh; the bombing was not targeted at any specific individual.”
• “The appellants were not directly involved in hurling bombs; their role was limited to an earlier altercation with the victims.”
• “The High Court overlooked crucial aspects of the evidence and wrongfully reversed the acquittal granted by the trial court.”
• “Given the time elapsed (nearly four decades since the incident), leniency should be shown in sentencing.”

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of West Bengal, defending the conviction, countered with the following arguments:

• “The appellants were part of an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons, and their intent was clear from their actions.”
• “The bomb attack was premeditated, as the accused waited for the victims to return home before hurling the explosives.”
• “The High Court properly appreciated the evidence and correctly reversed the trial court’s erroneous acquittal.”

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and the medical records of the deceased and injured victims. The Court noted:

“There was common intent to cause harm, but the assault with bombs was random and not specifically targeted at any individual.”

On the issue of unlawful assembly, the Court held:

“The accused were armed and had participated in the initial altercation. The subsequent bombing was a continuation of the same incident, indicating a shared objective.”

Regarding the appropriate conviction, the Court stated:

“While there was no direct intention to cause death, the accused acted with knowledge that their actions could likely result in fatal injuries. Thus, the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC is modified to Section 304 Part II IPC.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the appellants’ conviction from Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing their sentence from ten years to five years of rigorous imprisonment. Additionally, the Court increased the fine imposed on each convict to Rs. 50,000, directing that the amount be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased as compensation.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the distinction between Section 304 Part I and Part II IPC depends on the intention and knowledge of the accused.
• The judgment reinforces that past acquittals can be overturned if appellate courts find substantial evidence indicating wrongful acquittal.
• The ruling highlights the role of common object in unlawful assembly cases and the consequences of participating in mob violence.
• The Court acknowledged the long duration since the incident and took this factor into account while determining the appropriate sentence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides an essential precedent in cases of mob violence and unlawful assembly leading to death. While upholding the culpability of the accused, the Court also ensured that sentencing was proportional to the circumstances of the case. This judgment serves as a guiding principle in distinguishing between intention and knowledge in criminal liability.

Petitioner Name: Dilip Shaw @ Sanatan & Anr..
Respondent Name: State of West Bengal.
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Howrah, West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 02-03-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Dilip Shaw @ Sanatan vs State of West Bengal Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category