High Court upholds life term of two for teacher’s murder with parcel bomb

Kolkata: Observing that mere denial in answers doesn’t explain away and discard the incriminating circumstances appearing from evidence, the Calcutta High Court upheld life sentences of two persons accused of murdering a school teacher with a parcel bomb in 2011. The bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta was moved by the two accused challenging their life sentences.

On April 24, 2011, the victim woman (school teacher) came home and received a parcel in her name from the landlord’s daughter. The parcel came via a courier service when she wasn’t home. After the victim took it to her room, the neighbours heard an explosion. She was found unconscious and profusely bleeding. Lower part of her body was completely charred. Witnesses smelled explosive substance and saw pins, blood stains and pieces of paper strewn all over the floor and walls. She was declared dead at the hospital. Autopsy revealed death was due to the effects of the explosion. Two of the accused were later arrested. On their showing, police also recovered the explosive materials from their respective homes.

It was later established that the main accused (Prince) was in a relationship with the victim who withdrew after finding out he lied to her about being an electrical engineer when he didn’t even pass Madhyamik.

Defence said confessional statements leading to the discovery of the bomb-making material can’t be admitted as evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act since exact place was not indicated.

Court observed that the appellants proved their mental awareness about the presence of the bomb-making materials in their respective houses. This pointed towards their guilt. The court found their information given to the police is admissible in law. Further, the main accused didn’t explain his past affair with the victim during court examination. Court observed: “Mere denial in answers does not explain away and discard the incriminating circumstances, appearing from the evidence against the accused.”

The court found the chain of circumstances was complete and clearly established the guilt of the appellants in causing the death of the victim with

a parcel bomb.