Punjilal Meher vs State Of Odidha ....... Opp. Party on 25 March, 2019

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Punjilal Meher vs State Of Odidha ....... Opp. Party on 25 March, 2019

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ORI 68

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

BLAPL NO. 4017 Of 2018

An application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection CID, CB, Odisha, Cuttack P.S. Case
No.07 of 2018 corresponding to S.C. No.24 of 2018 pending on
the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Patnagarh.
----------------------------
Punjilal Meher ........ Petitioner

-Versus-
State of Odidha ....... Opp. Party

For Petitioner: - Mr. Asok Mohanty
Senior Advocate

For Opp. party: - Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
-------------------------------

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Argument: 13.03.2019 Date of Order: 25.03.2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S. K. SAHOO, J. Jealousy towards the colleague for losing

Principalship of the college seems to have spread tentacles of

cancerous cells in the revengeful mind of the loser for

painstaking planning and executing the infamous case of

Patnagarh parcel bomb tragedy. When jealousy overtakes the

human mind completely, it creates a feeling of neurotic
2

insecurity. Being engrossed by the incurable disease of

covetousness and possessed with a mad devil and dull spirit, a

jealous person gets struck within his dark and starless nights and

tries to eclipse the sun of his rival in an illegal way stooping to

the lowest level. Lack of ability of a volcanic minded person to

decide 'what is right and what is wrong' and how to act in a 'to

be or not to be' situation, not only becomes troublesome to

others but also creates torment to himself. Winning a jealousy

game against the opponent is no victory but an unending painful

tragedy.

Cherishing the dreams of a beautiful future and

bidding adieu to the timeless treasures of childhood memories

and intense feeling of adolescence and on making promises

before the sacred fire with the life partner to laugh, cry and grow

with him, bride Reema Sahu put her first step in her in-laws'

house at Brahmapura, Patnagarh to share the unconditional love

with one and all. The sweet dreams and amazing thrill of Reema

did not last long, when four days after her marriage, a parcel

received from the courier service purported to be containing a

wedding gift exploded resulting the death of her husband

Soumya Sekhar Sahu, her grandmother-in-law Jemamani Sahu

and also causing serious burn injuries on her.
3

2. The law was set into motion with the presentation of

a written report by one Basanta Kumar Sahu before Inspector in-

charge of Patnagarh police station on 23.02.2018 that there was

an explosion in the house of his maternal uncle Rabindra Sahu

situated at Brahmapura, Patnagarh and the house was filled with

smoke and his brother Soumya Sekhar Sahu, Soumya's wife

Reema Sahu and grandmother Jemamani Sahu received serious

injuries and were in critical condition. The household articles

were lying scattered due to explosion. The injured persons were

shifted to District Headquarters Hospital, Bolangir where

Jemamani Sahu was declared dead. Soumya and Reema were

shifted to V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla where Soumya

was declared dead.

Basing on such written report, Patnagarh P.S. Case

No.35 dated 23.02.2018 was registered under sections 307, 302

of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Explosive

Substances Act, 1908. The case was initially investigated by Sri

B. Das, I.I.C. of Patnagarh police station from 23.02.2018 to

22.03.2018. The scientific team and the bomb disposal team

visited the spot and seized explosion materials. One consignment

book, one register from Manager, Sky King Courier, Patnagarh so

also consignment papers from the Sky King Courier Office,
4

Phopadi, Raipur were seized and seizure lists were prepared. The

seized exhibits were dispatched to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh for

analysis.

As per the orders of D.G.P., Odisha, Mr. Anil Kumar

Das, Additional Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack took

over charge of investigation of Patnagarh P.S. Case No.35 of

2018 on 23.03.2018. In course of investigation, the I.O. visited

the spot, re-examined the informant and other witnesses afresh.

It was ascertained that Rabindra Kumar Sahu was a lecturer in

zoology in Jawahar Lal Nehru College, Patnagarh and his wife

Sanjukta Sahu was the Principal of Jyoti Vikash (Junior) College,

Bhainsa. They were staying together in a newly constructed

house in Brahmapura, Patnagarh since last two years. Their only

son Soumya Sekhar Sahu was serving as an Engineer in a

Japanese electronics firm at Bangalore. The marriage Ceremony

of Soumya with Reema was solemnized on 18.02.2018 followed

by reception on 20.02.2018. On 22.02.2018 Rabindra Kumar

Sahu had been to Delhi with his daughter to see her off to

Kazakhstan. On 23.02.2018 at about 10.00 a.m. Sanjukta Sahu,

mother of the deceased Soumya had been to her college leaving

the newly married couple and old mother-in-law Jemamani Sahu

in the house. At about 12.45 p.m. a delivery boy of Sky King
5

Courier, Patnagarh delivered the deadly parcel to Soumya which

was dispatched from Sky King Courier, Raipur. On receipt of the

parcel, Soumya thinking it to be a wedding gift, removed the

outer cover (cartoon) of the parcel in the kitchen in presence of

his grandmother and wife Reema and found another packet

inside. He also found a white thread projected outside. No

sooner he pulled the thread; it exploded resulting in severe

injuries to him as well as to Reema and Jemamani Sahu. The

impact of explosion was so severe that it created cracks on the

walls, shattered the door and window panes and damaged all the

household articles. On hearing the sound of explosion, the

distraught neighbours rushed to the spot and shifted the

critically injured persons to District Headquarters Hospital,

Bolangir. Jemamani Sahu died en route to the hospital. Other

injured persons Soumya and Reema were referred to V.S.S.

Medical College and Hospital, Burla where Soumya was also

declared dead by the medical officer and Reema was referred to

S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. The post mortem

reports of deceased Soumya and Jemamani Sahu revealed that

the death was on account of haemorrhage and shock as a result

of bomb blast injuries. Reema was found with forty percent burn

injuries due to bomb blast on her face, chest and abdomen and

both the upper arms. Smell of gun powder like substances was
6

coming out from the injuries of Reema and on query to medical

officer, it was opined that had the injuries affected the vital

organs, it would have caused death of the victim.

Investigation revealed that the petitioner prior to

consigning the parcel in Sky King Courier at Raipur had been to

DTDC Courier at Raipur at around 5.15 p.m. on 15.02.2018. The

receptionist at DTDC courier wanted to know the article inside

the packet that was intended to be booked in the courier. It was

told to the receptionist by the petitioner that the courier

contained sweets. The petitioner took away the parcel packet

and availed the services of Sky King Courier at Raipur located

nearby. The owner of the courier saw the petitioner in an auto

rickshaw in front his courier office. In the parcel, the sender's

name was mentioned as S.K. Sinha and the consignee's name as

Sekhar Sahu of Patnagarh. The parcel was received by the

consignee on 23.02.2018 and it exploded when opened by

Soumya. A letter with an envelope in connection with the parcel

bomb case was seized from the office of the Superintendent of

Police, Bolangir which mentioned that the parcel was sent in the

name of S.K. Sinha not S.K. Sharma and the sender also

mentioned not to harass innocent persons during interrogation

and it was a blast for the betrayal and requested police to
7

remain silent. On perusal of the contents of the letter, it was

found that the letter was written by the petitioner. Suspecting

the previous conduct of the petitioner, his house was searched

and nine numbers of envelops similar to the envelop sent by the

petitioner to the S.P., Bolangir were seized along with a laptop,

pen drive, other documents and materials. The xerox copy of

receipt of Sky King Courier, Raipur, where the petitioner booked

the parcel was seized from the house of the petitioner. The

laptop, pen drive and the printer used by the petitioner for

preparing the aforesaid letter were seized and sent to forensic

science laboratory, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for forensic analysis

and opinion. The petitioner confessed to have sent the letter and

also committed the crime. He stated to have prepared the bomb

and sent the same to the house of the deceased through Sky

King Courier, Raipur.

Investigation further revealed that petitioner was the

Principal of Jyoti Vikash (Junior) College, Bhainsa since year

2009 and Sanjukta Sahu joined in the college in the year 2014

as a Lecturer in History. Though Sanjukta Sahu was thirteen

years senior to the petitioner, neither the petitioner relinquished

the post of Principal in favour of Sanjukta Sahu nor did he have

any slightest regard towards her. From 2014 till 2017, the
8

petitioner continuously harassed Sanjukta Sahu by propagating

scandals against her and diminishing her stature. By virtue of

notification of Director of Higher Education, Odisha, though

Sanjukta Sahu reported her joining as Principal on 25.01.2017

but the petitioner neither honoured the Govt. Notification nor the

joining report of Sanjukta Sahu and himself continued as

Principal. It also transpired that soon after Sanjukta Sahu

assumed Principalship of the college, out of sheer jealousy and

enviousness, the petitioner intentionally indulged in evil practices

to undermine the position of Principal by putting wall writing in

filthy languages against her inside the college campus. He

threatened Sanjukta Sahu with dire consequences. Even after

the incident, on 16.04.2017 the petitioner had been to the room

of the Principal and finding her alone, intimated her about the

repercussion of ousting him from Principalship. After

appointment of Sanjukta Sahu as the Principal of the College, the

petitioner became angry and obsessive and he took it as his

degradation. He developed hostility against Sanjukta and out of

vengeance; he conceived the idea of sending parcel bomb to kill

Sanjukta and her family members. Due to the occasion of

marriage of Soumya, the petitioner got the opportunity to

materialize his evil design of damaging the family. He prepared

the parcel bomb and for the purpose of booking the parcel, he
9

carried the parcel to Raipur by train keeping his motor cycle at

Kantabanji Railway Station motor cycle stand and sent it to the

house of Sanjukta.

The petitioner was arrested on 24.04.2018 and on

the basis of his disclosure statement recorded under section 27

of the Evidence Act, burnt residue of crackers used to prepare

parcel bomb were seized from the dustbin in front of his house

and those were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory,

Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination and opinion.

The petitioner was forwarded to the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,

Patnagarh on 25.04.2018. The accused volunteered to give a

demo of making parcel bomb and accordingly, he was provided

with the materials and he showed the method of making a parcel

bomb successfully inside circuit house room no.408 Raipur under

section 27 of the Evidence Act. The same was recorded audio

visually with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner in

presence of independent witnesses.

3. The Investigating Officer found prima facie case

against the petitioner under sections 307, 302, 201 of the Indian

Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances

Act and submitted first charge sheet on 18.08.2018 under

sections 302, 307, 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with
10

sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act against the

petitioner keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) of

Cr.P.C. to collect more evidence on the point of procurement of

crackers by the petitioner, boarding in the train, tracing of auto

rickshaw driver, obtaining chemical examination report from

Gandhinagar and Rasulgarh.

During course of further investigation, despite best

effort by engaging reliable spies as well as working out the

credible tip offs at Raipur and nearby vicinity, no tangible

information whatsoever was received with regard to tracing out

the Auto rickshaw driver, who was engaged by the petitioner to

hand over the parcel bomb to the booking clerk of Sky King

Courier at Raipur. The memory cards sent to SFSL, Rasulgarh

were converted to C.D. by the Cyber Forensic Division. The C.D.

was handed over to Prof. Sangeeta Ratha, Professor of

Psychology, Ravenshaw College who viewed the C.D. and

observed the gesture, posture modulation of voice of petitioner

and gave her opinion that the petitioner appears to be preparing

the bomb at ease without any interference and he was not under

any kind of pressure during that period. On completion of

investigation, final charge sheet was placed on 30.01.2019 under

sections 307, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with
11

sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act after obtaining

sanction from Collector, Bolangir for prosecution of the petitioner

under sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. In the

meantime, the case has been committed to the Court of Session

and pending on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Patnagarh in

S.C. No.24 of 2018 for trial.

4. On careful scrutiny of the case records, it appears

that the investigating officers found the following materials

against the petitioner relating to his involvement in the case.

(i) There was rivalry between the petitioner and

Sanjukta Sahu, mother of the deceased Soumya over

the chair of Principalship of Jyoti Vikash (Junior)

College, Bhainsa. The staff of the college and

Sanjukta Sahu have stated about such rivalry;

(ii) The petitioner sent a letter to Superintendent

of Police, Bolangir after typing it out in his personal

laptop to divert the investigation of Crime Branch and

to confuse the investigating agency about his

location. The letter contained some relevant facts

which were directly connected with case and were in

exclusive knowledge of the petitioner;
12

(iii) Chemical examination report revealed that

composition of exclusive mixture found in the

exhibits were similar to the explosive mixture found

during spot visit and from the house of the petitioner

at Rampur;

(iv) The petitioner went to Raipur for booking the

parcel keeping his motor cycle at Kantabanji Railway

Station motor cycle stand;

(v) While in custody, the petitioner confessed his

guilt to have sent the parcel bomb from Sky King

Courier, Raipur which was recorded under section 27

of the Evidence Act and was also video graphed and

he led the police team from Bhainsa College to Sky

King Courier;

(vi) The petitioner volunteered to give a demo of

making parcel bomb and accordingly, he was

provided with the materials and he showed the

method of making a parcel bomb successfully inside

circuit house room no.408 at Raipur which was

recorded audio visually;
13

(vii) A test identification parade was conducted

inside Patnagarh Jail where the receptionist in the

DTDC Courier, Raipur and the proprietor of Sky King

Courier, Raipur identified the petitioner;

(viii) Forensic Psychological Assessment and

Layered Voice Analysis tests of the petitioner were

conducted by the forensic experts on 05/06.05.2018

and the experts opined that the petitioner is trustful

in his statement that he is involved the crime. It was

observed that the responses of the petitioner were

complete on this issue and his version is correct with

regard to the offence.

(ix) Some diaries and note books were seized from

the house of the petitioner which revealed his

revengeful mind and hatred towards Sanjukta Sahu;

(x) The petitioner had taken the cardboard carton

from the college which was used to pack the parcel

bomb. The chemical examiner found the cardboard

carton was similar to that of remnants of cardboard

mixed with explosive mixture seized from the spot;
14

5. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by

the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in charge, Patnagarh in Bail

Application No.50 of 2018 vide order dated 01.06.2018.

6. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in

judicial custody since 25.04.2018 and the case is pending before

the learned trial Court awaiting trial and there is no chance of

absconding of the petitioner who is a lecturer in the college and

permanent resident of village Rampur under Patnagarh police

station. He argued that the motive allegedly behind the crime

appears to be too flimsy and it is difficult to accept that relating

to the dispute of Principalship of the College, the petitioner would

go to the extent of committing the alleged crime rather the

materials on record indicate that the petitioner was invited to the

reception of Soumya and he attended it and blessed the couple

which shows that there was no such bitterness between the

parties. It is contended that the so-called letter stated to have

been sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bolangir is a stage

managed one and it has been concocted to falsely entangle the

petitioner in the crime. He submitted that the so-called

identification of the petitioner in the T.I. parade by the

receptionist of DTDC Courier, Raipur and proprietor of Sky King
15

Courier, Raipur cannot be given any importance to at all, as prior

to the test identification parade, the petitioner was taken to

Raipur to the office of the couriers and shown to the witnesses.

He further submitted that in absence of any direct evidence, the

nature of circumstantial evidence against the petitioner is not so

clinching that it can be said even prima facie that the petitioner

is the author of the crime and therefore, in order to give him a

chance to defend the case properly, he should be released on

bail.

Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing

Counsel on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for

bail and submitted that even though there is no direct evidence

but the chain of circumstances is so complete that it unerringly

points towards the guilt of the petitioner. He submitted that the

manner in which the petitioner harassed and humiliated Sanjukta

Sahu as he was deprived of the post of Principalship of the

College clearly indicate the bitterness in his mind which

prompted him to conceptualise the plan to eliminate the entire

family members of Sanjukta Sahu. He argued that by the time

the petitioner attended the marriage reception of Soumya, he

had already handed over the parcel bomb at Raipur in the

Courier and cunningly he executed the devilish plan and his
16

attendance in the marriage reception was an endeavour to show

that nobody would create any doubt on him in future. While not

disputing that when the petitioner volunteered to give a demo of

the entire occurrence, he was taken to Raipur, Mr. Tripathy

stated that every precaution was taken to keep the petitioner in

Ba-Parda and therefore, there is nothing to doubt about the

sanctity of such identification parade in which two persons from

the courier service identified the petitioner. It is submitted that it

is a sensational case and the petitioner is a very cunning and

powerful man and once he is released on bail, he is likely to

tamper with the evidence. The petitioner has got one criminal

antecedent in Patnagarh P.S. Case no.59 of 2004 under sections

147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 435 read with section 149 of the Indian

Penal Code and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and

during his UTP period at Patnagarh Sub-jail, the petitioner tried

to escape from the jail with the help of other under trial

prisoners by assaulting the jail staff for which Patnagarh P.S.

Case No.25 of 2019 was registered under sections 294, 353, 323

read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the

petitioner should not be released on bail.

7. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned

counsel for the respective sides, it is not in dispute that the
17

entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The law relating

to proof of a criminal charge by means of circumstantial evidence

is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to

be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established

should not only be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of

the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence and

such circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and

tendency and they should exclude any other possible hypothesis

except the one to be proved. The facts should not be explainable

on any other hypothesis. Whether the accused has explained it

or not is not very material. If the circumstances or some of them

can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the

accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. It does not

mean that any extravagant hypothesis would be sufficient to

sustain the principle, but the hypothesis suggested must be

reasonable. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every

hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched &

fanciful it might be. The chain of evidence must be so complete

as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

consistent to the innocence of the accused and it must show that

in all human probability, the act must have done by the accused.

Circumstantial evidence must be a combination of facts creating

a net work through which there is no escape for the accused
18

because the facts taken as a whole do not admit any inference

but of his guilt. While it is true that there should be no missing

links in the prosecution case, it is not the law that every one of

the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced.

Some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved

facts. While appreciating such cases, there is always a danger

that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof

and as such the Court must be watchful and ensure that

conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof.

Circumstances of strong suspicion without more conclusive

evidence are not sufficient to justify conviction, even though the

party offers no explanation of them. Great care must be taken in

evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on

is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the

accused must be accepted.

It is aptly said that "man may tell lies, but

circumstances do not" but the Court should keep in mind while

adjudicating a case based on circumstantial evidence that

circumstances can be created/concocted/planted in order to

falsely entangle a person on mere suspicion. Fouler the crime,

higher should be the proof. In the absence of legal proof of a

crime, there can be no legal criminality.
19

8. It appears that the prosecution has brought on

record many clinching circumstances against the petitioner

relating to his involvement in the crime. The trial is likely to

commence very soon. Each of the circumstances is to be duly

proved by the prosecution during trial either by adducing oral

evidence or by documentary evidence. It would be the duty of

the trial Court to carefully assess the evidence before arriving at

the conclusion of guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. What was

the motive behind the crime, how it was planned and executed

and by whom, how did the sender of the bomb manage to get

his hands on an explosive and pack and send it to the target so

easily, whether the petitioner is the author of the cruel and

diabolic crime, whether he was shown to the identifying

witnesses before the T.I. parade and whether the chain of

circumstances is complete enough to point towards the guilt of

the petitioner are the matters for proof during trial and not

necessarily to be undertaken at this stage inasmuch as while

passing orders on bail application, detailed examination of the

evidence and elaborate documentation on the merits of the case

should be avoided as no party should have an impression that

his case has been prejudged. To be satisfied about a prima facie

case is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits

in the order itself.
20

9. Taking into account the pre-planned manner in which

the gruesome and barbaric crime was committed, prima facie

materials on record to show that the petitioner masterminded it

for being replaced by the mother of deceased Soumya from the

post of Principal, the way two innocent lives were taken away

and a young newly-wedded bride lost vermilion from her

forehead and Alta adorned in the palms and feet forever within a

week of her marriage, the nature and gravity of accusation, the

nature of supporting oral and documentary evidence, the

shocking impact of the crime on the family of the victims and

collective conscience of the society, the severity of punishment

in case of conviction, the conduct of the petitioner in trying to

escape from jail custody and chances of tampering with the

witnesses, I am of the humble view that the petitioner does not

deserve to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application being devoid of

merits, stands dismissed.

...............................
S. K. Sahoo, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 25th March 2019/Pravakar/Sukanta

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court