Kiran Raj

The Calcutta High Court, has dismissed the appeals filed by two individuals convicted of a murder carried out using a parcel bomb. A division bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court, affirming the life imprisonment of the appellants. The court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence presented against the accused was complete and conclusive, allowing no room for an alternative hypothesis.

The case revolves around the murder of Aparna Biswas, a teacher employed at Malda Ramkinkar Balika Vidyashram, who was killed by an explosion caused by a parcel bomb. The victim resided as a tenant at the house of Sitanshu Das in Malanchapally, English Bazar, Malda. On April 24, 2011, while at home, she received a parcel that had been delivered by a courier service earlier that day. Upon opening the parcel, an explosion occurred, causing fatal injuries to the victim, particularly to the lower part of her body.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Convictions in Murder Case, Citing Inconsistent Testimonies, Flawed Investigation, and Lack of Credible Evidence

The prosecution's case established that the parcel contained an explosive device and had been sent by the appellant, Prince Ghosh, with the assistance of his co-accused, Rajkumar Rishi. The investigation revealed that Ghosh had previously been in a romantic relationship with the victim. However, when the victim discovered that Ghosh had misrepresented his educational qualifications—having falsely claimed to be an electrical engineer—she ended the relationship. The prosecution asserted that this break-up motivated Ghosh to seek revenge against the victim.

Investigators collected witness testimonies and forensic evidence to establish the involvement of the accused. The courier service personnel, including employees who handled the parcel at the Nightingale Courier Service, identified the appellants as the individuals who had deposited the parcel for delivery. Forensic reports confirmed that the remnants of the bomb contained explosive materials, including potassium nitrate, and similar materials were recovered from the residences of the accused. The police also found a battery marked with "AKARI" at the crime scene, and an identical battery was discovered at the residence of Prince Ghosh.

The police apprehended the appellants in Sujapur after a search of their known residences proved unsuccessful. Confessional statements were recorded, in which the appellants led the police to locations where bomb-making materials had been stored. The materials were seized in the presence of independent witnesses and included wires, switches, detonators, and other explosive substances. Call data records obtained from the mobile service provider further corroborated the involvement of the accused by linking them to phone conversations with courier service personnel regarding the delivery of the parcel.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4(a) of the Explosive Substances Act. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and were ordered to pay fines as additional punishment.

The division bench thoroughly analysed the evidentiary value of the confessional statements made by the appellants and their legal admissibility. The court stated:

"The appellants have zeroed down on the place of presence of the bomb-making materials by directing the police to their respective residences, from where the said materials have been recovered. The appellants have, therefore, proved their mental awareness about the presence of the bomb-making materials in their respective houses."

The court noted that these statements directly led to the discovery of incriminating materials and were therefore admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment further examined precedents regarding confessional statements and held that the disclosure of the bomb-making materials by the accused met the legal requirements for admissibility.

The court also addressed the chain of circumstantial evidence, stating that the forensic reports, call data records, witness testimonies, and material evidence conclusively established the appellants' guilt. The judgment stated:

"The proof of delivery was a yellow voucher. When the deceased returned to her residence, she received the parcel, and shortly thereafter, an explosion occurred. The remains of the bomb contained chemicals that were found in the possession of the appellants."

Regarding common intention under Section 34 IPC, the court observed:

"The accused jointly disclosed the location of the bomb-making equipment, assigned the job of delivering the parcel to the courier service, and jointly threatened the courier agents to ensure delivery. The common intention to cause the victim’s death is established."

The judgment stated that the level of urgency exhibited by the appellants in ensuring the delivery of the parcel was indicative of their intent. Witnesses testified that the appellants had repeatedly contacted the courier service, pressing for the parcel to be delivered promptly. The prosecution presented call records linking the appellants to these communications.

The forensic analysis of the parcel remnants also played a crucial role in the court’s findings. The court observed that the forensic examination of the victim’s injuries confirmed that she had been exposed to a high-intensity explosion, which was consistent with the use of an improvised explosive device. The nature of the injuries and the presence of metal fragments at the crime scene further corroborated the prosecution’s case.

The court dismissed arguments from the defense that sought to challenge the chain of circumstantial evidence. The court stated:

"The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused."

The division bench also considered the doctrine of common intention, stating:

"The evidence clearly establishes the common intention of the appellants under Section 34 of the IPC. The preparation and delivery of the bomb required coordination, which both appellants provided. The legal threshold for joint criminal liability has been met."

Also Read: Improper to Direct Chief Justice to Relax Rules’: Rajasthan High Court on Court Staff’s Plea for Promotion Without Efficiency Test

The Calcutta High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating:

"The trial judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. The impugned judgment and order of sentencing call for absolutely no interference. The appeals are hereby dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

• For the Appellant in CRA 417 of 2017: Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Mr. Subodh Banerjee, Mr. Samrat Banerjee

• For the Appellant in CRA 326 of 2017: Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, Ms. Swarnali Saha, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar, Mr. Vivek Kr. Panda, Mr. Kashinath Bhattacharyya

• For the State: Mr. Debasish Roy (Ld. P.P.), Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Ms. Anusuya Sinha, Ms. Trina Mitra

Case Title: Rajkumar Rishi v. The State of West Bengal ; Prince Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal

Case Number: (C.R.A. No. 417 of 2017) and  (C.R.A. No. 326 of 2017)

Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]