I read in this source that the past participle phrase is used in a passive sense, in which the action is done to the subject described by the phrase. It gives this example:
Exhausted by the morning's work, I got myself a cup of coffee and sat
down.
But I've come across this news headline which seems to contradict that:
Bomb explosion hit Magallanes City, killed 7 and 9 others wounded.
Here, the past participle phrase killed 5 and 28 others wounded is done by the subject Bomb explosion. The rule(?) above says that the subject of the sentence must not be the doer of the action in the past participle phrase. Instead, it must be the receiver.
So I think it must be corrected to use the present participle to describe that the doer is the subject:
Bomb explosion hit Magallanes City, killing 7 and wounding 9 others.
Do you think the original headline is correct? How about my revision?
Best Answer
First and foremost, it should be noted that news[paper] headlines are usually not useful examples of valid grammatical constructions. Having said that, OP's example...
...is a particularly egregious construction (I think it's truly awful). Very likely the writer wasn't what I would call a native Anglophone in the first place. The reason it's so bad is that killed and wounded are effectively being used as different "parts of speech" (the first is closer to a verb: the bomb killed 7, but the second looks more like an adjectival past participle: 9 were wounded [by the bomb]).
Having said that, I don't see much point in ELL discussing how headlines could be better phrased. OP's suggested alternative probably is "better", but with an article (probably A) in front, it would never be considered "grammatical" in normal speech/writing.
OP's notion that the subject of the sentence must not be the doer of the action in the past participle phrase might have some relevance in this exact construction, but there's nothing wrong with any of...