1981 Howrah bomb attack: SC converts 304 Part I to Part II; 5-year RI, Rs. 50,000 compensation each

Case name: Dilip Shaw @ Sanatan & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (with connected appeal)

Date of Order: 02 March 2020

Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1431 of 2013 & 1430 of 2013

Bench: Deepak Gupta, J.; Aniruddha Bose, J. (author)

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the conviction under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC should be changed to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. The judges found no clear intent to kill Gurdev Singh. Instead, the accused knew that their act—throwing bombs at a fleeing group—could cause death.

The Court held that this showed knowledge, not intention. So, the offence amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II. The eyewitnesses were consistent, and medical reports confirmed death from bomb injuries. The trial court’s acquittal rested on guesswork, while the High Court’s conviction was right but applied the wrong part of the law.

The Supreme Court noted that the assault was a group act with a common object to attack, not to murder. Because the case was over forty years old and the accused were elderly, the Court reduced their punishment.

Summary: The case began after a violent fight on 25 March 1981 at Belilious Road, Howrah. Members of the Singh family were attacked by a group of men. As the family ran, two bombs exploded, killing Gurdev Singh and injuring others.

The trial court acquitted all the accused, doubting the prosecution and the dying declaration. Later, the Calcutta High Court reversed the verdict. It convicted the men under Section 304 Part I/149 IPC, Section 148 IPC, and Section 9B(2) of the Explosives Act, giving each a ten-year jail term.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reexamined the evidence. Witnesses gave matching accounts of the attack. Doctors confirmed that bomb injuries caused Gurdev Singh’s death. But the bombs were thrown from behind at a retreating group. No one aimed at a specific person.

The Court found that the accused had knowledge that their act could cause death but no direct plan to kill. The intention to murder was missing. The judges said the case fit Section 304 Part II, not Part I. The group shared a common object to attack, not to murder, bringing Section 149 IPC into play.

Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It changed the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. The Court reduced the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on each accused. The amount will go to the family of the deceased Gurdev Singh.

If the fine is not paid, each will serve six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The convictions under Section 148 IPC and Section 9B(2) of the Explosives Act, 1884 were upheld, but no extra sentence was added for these offences.

The Court considered the age of the accused and the passage of over four decades since the incident. It found that justice required both accountability and compassion. The accused were ordered to surrender within six weeks, with time already served counted toward their sentence.

This ruling clarifies how courts must separate intention from knowledge under Section 304 IPC. It also shows that group liability under Section 149 IPC applies only when the common object matches the act committed. The decision balances fairness, legal principle, and the need for proportionate punishment.