The Alipore Bomb Trial

ELEVENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Das continuing his address said that with regard to the interpretation of section 73 of the Evidence Act, he found that the history of the section showed that what was intended to be done was that witnesses should he allowed to compare documents in court, and inasmuch as it was at one time doubted whether the court or jury could look into such a document, it was especially provided by the Act. In support of that view Counsel cited) a case in 10, Moore’s Appeals. That was a Privy Council case and was a decision on this point.

     Their Lordships would remember the words of the English Statute which referred to witnesses. In a case reported in Foster and Finlayson’s Reports that question arose and in as much as the word “ witnesses " was there, the Court could not admit the document sought to be admitted. Counsel read Section 27 of the English Statute of 1854 and said that that section was reproduced in section 8 of the English Statute of IS64. In India, Act II of 1855 (the Evidence Act) reproduced the same section, the Indian section being section 48. That was the original of section 73 of the present code. The case reported in Foster and Finlayson was the only case upon which was based the observation in Taylor on Evidence on which Counsel for the Crown relied. Mr. Das submitted that that section enabled witnesses in the box to compare hand-writing for the purpose of giving evidence as to whether a particular document was in the handwriting or not of a particular person. When any writing was made in Court by a witness, it enabled the Court or jury to look into that. Sections 4-5 and 47 of the Evidence Act merely said that the opinion was relevant and did not contemplate actual comparison in Court. In addition section 47 laid down three ways in which that opinion might be formed.

Page 242

     Counsel next cited a case in 9 Coxe's Criminal Cases, page 448. That was a very old case. In that case such evidence was disallowed but the grounds were not stated. Counsel did not know how far that case would assist their Lordships, as no reasons were assigned for the decision.

     Counsel next cited a case of R. D. Harvey in 11 Coxe.

     Continuing Counsel said that the case may have been decided from another point of view. Before that section their Lordships had nothing under the Evidence Act under which any document in- admissible to the issue in the case might be admitted.

     Mr. Das then proceeded to deal with the case of Barindra Kumar Ghose and said that in not one of the searches of the "Jugantar" was Barindra found by Inspector Puma Chandra Lahiri. He would not place the evidence as to the searches of the "Jugantar" before their Lordships because his point was that there was no such evidence in connection with the searches.

     The Jugantar, said Mr. Das, was started in March, 1906. The Eirst press in which the Jugantar was printed was the Kamala Press. The owner of that press was Bisheshar Sen. He was a witness for the prosecution. The case for the prosecution then being that he was a conspirator. The Sessions Judge, however, took a different view of the case. Bisheshar Sen said with reference to the relations between the Jugantar and himself that he only saw Bhupendra Nath Dutt who was subsequently convicted of sedition. According to the prosecution Barindra seemed to be the principal Egure, but Bhupendra Nath Dutt did not point out Barindra.

     Apart from the confession there was no evidence upon which it could be said that Barindra was connected with the Jugantar. When their Lordships came to the confession their Lordships would find Barindra said that he in conjunction with others, started the Jugantar.

     The difficulty became greater when the Sessions Judge took exception to eighteen articles of the Jugantar only four of which were within the period covered by the charge. As regards the fourteen articles which were outside the period covered by the charge, Mr. Das submitted that they were irrelevant. With regard to the other four articles, the prosecution were put in this diHicu1ty. If the prosecution acted on Barindra’s confession then those four articles appeared at a time when Barindra had nothing to do with the Jugantar.

     After dealing with the articles in the Jugantar Mr. Das said.— My submission on the whole is subject to any criticism my learned friend may make, that these articles may be seditious, and many of them are no doubt seditious. But your Lordships will

Page 243

find that the main idea which runs through them is that a need for independence must be created. All the different disquisitions on revolution, etc., are for the purpose of creating these means and all the means they advocate are for that purpose. No doubt the object is the ultimate political independence of the country, but they confine themselves to this, the propagation of the ideal of freedom and the means to bring about that ideal. That, in short, is my submission on these articles.

     Counsel then went on to say that the next question with regard to Barindra was the consideration of the documents. There were very few documents referred to in the judgment and those were exhibits 76, 85, 239, 332 and 667.

     Mr. Das then referred to these exhibits.

     With regard to the evidence of the overt acts, as apart from the confessions, their Lordships would have already noticed the incident of the 10th April, which was spoken to by all the witnesses. There were evidence that Barin and others had gone to Chandernagore and the outrage on the Mayor followed the next day. With reference to that, Counsel would submit this: Their Lord ships would find that there was one characteristic with regard to those incidents spoken to by different witnesses, namely, that whenever a particular person was specially deputed to a particular lace, their Lord-ships would End an incident immediate followed There were too many of such coincidence throughout. The police officers who accompanied Barin to Mankundu, were Purna Chandra Biswas, Noreudra Mullick, Suresh Ghose and Balai Ganguli. There was evidence that Suresh was Barin's class fellow. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances it was absurd that Suresh would have followed Barin in the same railway carriage.

     The story put forward before the committing Magistrate was on the strength of the confession made on the 2^nd May. Afterwards the story was followed with many details. The story was therefore not entitled to be credited.

     With regard to the Naraingarh outrage, Counsel pointed out rather glaring discrepancies between the confession of Barin and that of Bibhuty. After reading these two confessions, Counsel submitted that it looked too much like an attempt to get the corroboration of facts from Darin, which the police were in possession at that time.

     Counsel would not trouble their Lordships with the Muzafferpore outrage, because the Sessions Judge had held that this overt act was not in furtherance of this conspiracy.

     At this stage, the Court rose for the day.

Page 244