A narrative of the Alipore Bomb trial by the defence lawyer along with authentic reports & material related to the trial.
CHARGES WITH ONE HEAD
I, C. P. Beachcroft, Esq., Addl. Sessions Judge,24 Perghs., hereby charge you (names mentioned below) as follows:―
That you or about the 12 months preceding May 15th 1908, at various places in Bengal, including 32, Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, which is within my jurisdiction, collected men, arms or ammunition, or otherwise prepared to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the King-Emperor.
And thereby committed an offence punishable under section 122 of the Indian Penal Cord and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge.
(1) Barendra Kumar Ghose
( 20 ) Din Doyal Bose
(2) Indra Bhusan Rai
(21) Sudhir Kumar Sirker
( 3) Ullaskar Dutta
(22) Kristo Jiban Sanyal.
(4) Upendra Nath Banerji.
(23) Hrishi Kesh Kanjilal.
(5) Sisir Kumar Ghose
(24) Birendra Nath Ghose.
(6) Nalini K. Sen Gupta
(25) Dharani Nath Gupta.
(7) Sachindra K. Sen.
(26) Nagendra Nath Gupta.
(8) Poresh Ch.Maullik.
(27)Asoke Ch. Nandy.
(9) Kunjal Lal Saha.
(28) Susil Kumar Sen.
(10) Bijoy Kumar Nag.
(29) Birendra Chandra Sen.
(11) Norendra Nath Bakshi.
(30) Hem. Ch. Sen.
(12) Purna Ch. Sen.
(31) Debabrata Bose.
(13) Hemendra Nath Ghose.
(32) Indra Nath Nandy.
(14) Bibhuti Bhusan Sirker.
(33) Nikhileswar Roy Mullick.
(15) Nirapada Roy.
(34) Bijoy Ch. Bhattacharji.
(16)Hem Ch. Das.
(35) Bal Kissen Hari Kani.
(17) Arabinda Ghose.
(36) Probhash Ch. Deb.
(18) Abinash Ch. Bhattacharji.
(37) Charu Ch. Roy.
(19) Sailendra Nath Bose.
Page 52
I, C. P. Beachcroft, Esq., Addl. Sessions Judge, 24-Perghs., hereby charge you as follows:-
That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th, 1908, at various places in Bengal, including 32, Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, which is in my jurisdiction, did wage war against the King, attempted to wage war against the King, and abetted the waging of war against the King.
And thereby committed an offence punishable under section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, and with the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.
Dated at ALIPORE, The 20th day of October 1908.
(Sd.) C. P. BEACHCROFT, Addl. Sessions Judge.
In consequence of several objections put in by the defence the following amended or additional charge was drawn up and was read over to the accused on the 12th February, 1909, during the course of the trial. It is given here for the sake of convenience.
CHARGES.
I, hereby charge you (names given below) as follow:―
First.―That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th 1908, at various places in Bengal including 32, Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, waged war against His Majesty The King-Emperor of India and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court Sessions.
Secondly:― That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th, 1908, at various places in Bengal including 32, Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, attempted to wage war against His Majesty King-Emperor of India, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 121 on the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.
Thirdly:―That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th, 1908 at various places in Bengal including 32 Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, abetted one another and other persons in waging war against His Majesty the King-Emperor of India, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 121, of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.
Page 53
Fourthly:― That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th 1908, at various places in Bengal including, 32, Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, conspired among yourselves and with other persons to commit all or any of the offences under Section 121,I.P. Code, as set forth in the above three counts, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court Sessions.
Fifthly:― That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th, 1908, at various places in Bengal including 32, Muraripukur Road Maniktola, conspired among yourselves and with other persons to deprive His Majesty the King-Emperor of India of the Sovereignty of British India or of a part thereof, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.
Sixthly:― That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th, 1908, at various places in Bengal including 32, Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, conspired amongst yourselves and with other persons to overawe by criminal force the Government of Indian or the Local Government of Bengal, and thereby committee an offence punishable under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.
Seventhly:―That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th, 1908, at various places in Bengal including 32, Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, collected men, arms, or ammunitions or otherwise prepared to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor of India and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 122 of the Indian Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.
Eighthly:― That you, on or about the 12 months preceding May 15th, 1908, at various places in Bengal including 32, Muraripukur Road, Maniktola, concealed by illegal omissions the existence of a design to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor of India intending by such concealment of facilitate, or knowing it to be likely that such concealment would facilitate the waging of such war, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 123 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.
And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges.
Dated this 12th day of February, 1909.
(Sd.) C. P. BEACHCROFT,
Additional Sessions Judge.
Page 54
( 20 ) Dindayal Bose
(22) Krishna Jiban Sanyal.
(6) Nalini Kanta Sircar Gupta
(7) Sachindra K.Sen.
(8) Paresh Chandra.Maullik.
(27)Asok Chandra.Nandi
(9) Kunjal Lal Sah
(11) Narendra Nath Bakshi.
(30) Hem. Chandra Sen.
(12) Purna Chandra Sen.
(14) Bibhuti Bhusan Sarker.
(34) Bijoy Ch. Bhattacharjee
(16)Hem Chandra Das.
(36) Provash Chandra Deb. Alias-Manik lal Deb
(18) Abinash Ch.Bhattacharji.
Before the proceedings commenced the defence took several objections and during the course of the trial other objections were taken from time to time. It would be convenient if they summerised and given at the outset, as it was submitted they affected the whole trial .
They were as follows :―
(1) (a) The Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta having taken cognisance of the case on the 2nd and 3rd May 1908, Mr. Birley, the District Magistrate of 24- Perghannas had no jurisdiction to withdraw the case from the file of the former to his own file and as such the commitment by Mr. Birley was not a valid one. The object of the withdrawal was started to deprive the accused of a trial by Jury in the High Court Sessions.
(b) Committing Magistrate having taken cognisance without any complaint in accordance with Sec.196, Cr. P. C. his commitment was a nullity.
(2) Sec. 121 I. P. C. having not been mentioned in the sanction granted by the Local Government Mr. Birley was
Page 55
wrong in framing a charge under that section. Mr. Norton produced a sanction granted by the Government, and applied to frame charges under that section and section 122. It was objected to as the Sessions Court could not take cognisance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction.
(3) Those committed subsequently as a second batch should be separately tried from the batch as the confessions and evidence recorded and a adduced behind their back would, if admitted, seriously prejudice them.
(4) Objection was taken on behalf of Charu Chandra Roy, who was a Professor in the Dupleix College in French Chanderagore, that extradition was taken from the French Government on a charge of murder, and as he was prosecuted for political offences, the Court had no jurisdiction to try him for these offences for which no extradition was taken. (He was discharged)
(5) That the commitment without giving the accused opportunities of cross-examining prosecution witnesses and examining defence witnesses as prayed for was illegal.
(6) The charges were vague and indistinct, no particulars were supplied to the accused. The charges under section 121 merely reproduced the words of the section, so that accused did not know whether they were charged with having waged war or with having attempted to wage war or having abetted the waging of such war. No notice was given of the person or persons whom they were alleged to have abetted or of the particular place or places where they were alleged to have committed the said offence or offences or the particular overt acts in respect thereof, nor the time when the offences were committed. With regard to charge under section 123 information should be given as to the nature of the obligation to take any steps with reference to any alleged design to wage war. (It is important to note here that when the trial had occupied nearly four months, the learned Sessions Judge drew up a fresh charge sheet giving some particulars.)
(7) Objection was taken to the examination of new witnesses in the Sessions Court about whom no notice was given at the opening of the case.
(8) The prosecution could not put in revised charges on the 10th February 1909 after the trial had gone on for months especially as objections to the vagueness of the charges were taken so long to remedy the same.
(9) That the proceedings were without jurisdiction in as much there had been misjoinder of charges and persons, (vide section 233 Cr. P. C.)
Page 56
(10) The Committing Magistrate having taken cognisance of the case before the confessions were recorded, he had no power to record the same under section 164 Cr. P. C. and they were invalid and inadmissible, also as the Magistrate put questions to the accused with reference to the case while recording the same.
(11) Objection was also taken to much of the evidence in the case as irrelevant and inadmissible especially those relating to -
(a) Searches at 4 Raja's Lane, Sil's Lodge, 15 Gopi Mohan Dutt's Lane, 12 Wellington Square, 30/2 Harrison Road, the Bande Mataram office.
(b) Oral and documentary evidence relating to various newspaper articles and the alleged connection between the papers and with them and the conspiracy.
(c) The various meetings held in different parts of the country.
(d) The alleged volunteers as a class.
(e) Conviction of some of the accused and other persons for certain alleged offences.
(f) Judgments and records of various cases.
(g) Searches, as none of them were legally and properly conducted and proved.
Page 57
Home
E Library
Books
Share your feedback. Help us improve. Or ask a question.