The Alipore Bomb Trial

FORTY-SECOND DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

     Mr. Das continuing his reply to the arguments of the Crown in the case against Abinash, submitted that the letters relied upon by the Crown to prove the connection of Abinash with the conspiracy showed an absence of connection of any kind. There was not a tittle of evidence on the record from which the inference could be drawn that Abinash was in the editorial chair of the "Yugantar ” after September, 1907. The next document relied upon by the Crown was the rent receipt in respect of the Muraripukur garden, dated the 24^th June, 1907. When he (Mr. Das) was dealing with this case, Mr. Norton said that rent receipt was not evidence against Abinash but against Barindro, but later on Mr. Norton changed his mind and submitted that it was evidence against Abinash also. Mr. Das contended that the receipt in question was no sort of evidence against Abinash. If it did prove anything at all it merely showed that on the 24^th of June, 1907, Barindro used Abinash as a sort of mohurrir at the Alipore Court. Counsel submitted that that document did not prove Abinash’s connection with the conspiracy and that the other letters also did not raise the inference which his learned friend wanted to draw in this connection. The reasoning adopted by Mr. Norton in this connection was fallacious. For these reasons the documentary evidence was insufficient in this respect. If on the other hand they looked at the oral evidence, namely, the evidence of the shadowing witnesses in regard to the connection of Abinash with the garden they would find that that also failed. All the inferences and conclusions arrived at by Mr. Norton in connection with Abinash were based on a number of uncertain dates. In support of the contention Counsel briefly referred to the evidence of the shadowing witnesses. Mr. Norton had said that Satish and Suresh, (shadowing witnesses) had committed honest mistakes. The appellants were at the peril of their lives and they did not care whether the shadowing witnesses had committed honest mistakes or not. It was immaterial whether it was an honest mistake or deliberate purjury and the result was that this evidence could not be relied upon.

     Continuing Counsel said that so far as the oral and the documentary evidence were concerned there was no connection between Abinash and the garden. The next question was whether Abinash’s connection with the "Yugautar" established his connection with the conspiracy. Mr. Das then went on reading Purna Chandra Lahiri’s statement.

     Carnduff J : Strictly that statement is no evidence as it was hearsay.

     Mr. Das then referred to Bhupendra Nath’s connection with the " Yugantar."

     The Chief Justice: Is Bhupendra Nath a conspirator?

Page 337

     Mr. Norton : Yes.

     Mr. Das next referred to the evidence regarding Abinash’s connection with Jugantar in 1906 and said that apart from Barindra's confession that evidence came to nothing. If their Lordships look to Barindra's confession to ascertain what part Abinash took they would find that Barindra said that with the help of Abinash he started the Yuguntar. Did Barindra say that Abinash helped him so far as the policy of the paper was concerned ? Abinash might have procured subscribers and advertisements and that would be helping. So far as Abinash’s connection with the Yugantar in 1907 was concerned there was no question for he was only acting as Manager.

     The Chief Justice: Take the facts quite broadly. Here is a paper which is started, we know, in March 1906. We find a person unquestionably connected with it in 1907. Then there is a statement which we are entitled to take into consideration, and which indicates that that person’s connection did not commence in 1907. Would it not be legitimate on those materials to say that that person was there in May, 1907, and that the matter which we are entitled to take into consideration together with the ordinary presumption about things in general go to show he was there in 1906 ?

     Mr. Das : Your Lordships are taking the two together. Is there sufficient evidence for your Lordships apart from the question of belief or disbelief to raise that presumption ? Unless there is that evidence your Lordships cannot look to the confession of Barindra because it is the statement of a co-accused. If your Lordships take the two together it will be so. The only piece of evidence on the record is that of Purna Chandra Lahiri who says that he saw. Abinash in the “Yugantar" office in 1906.

     Continuing Mr. Das said that for all that Abinash had done he might be charged with sedition but certainly not with conspiracy. Something more must be proved to bring him within the purview of section 121 A. Abinash then cut off all connection with the "Yugantar" for he feared a prosecution. The Crown had relied on Exhibit 990 which was a peon book to show the connection of Abinash with Indra Nath. Counsel submitted it was a very artificial connection. Various names appeared in the peon book. There was the name of the Chairman of the Corporation and Counsel did not know whether the Chairman of the Corporation could be charged with conspiracy.

     After referring to other documents relied on by the Crown, Mr. Das submitted that it was an admitted fact that Abinash was the manager of the "Yugantar" for some time. He was the proprietor of the Sadhana Press where "Yugantar" used to be printed and he was thus the manager of the "Yugantar” during that

Page 338

period. The next question was why Abinash left the "Yugantar" The answer was quite plain. The "Yugantar" was prosecuted and his mother did not allow him to have any connection with the "Yugantar " Then there were the two books "Mukti kon Pathe" and Bartaman Rananity. The first was the reproduction of a series of articles from the "Yugantar" and there was no prosecution in regard to those articles. Bartaman Rananity contained a series of articles to which no objection could be taken. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence that Abinash published the book Mukti kon Pathe. lt had been said by the Sessions- Judge that Counsel for Abinash admitted the publication but it was a qualified admission.

     Carnduff J. : You did not mention this in your opening.

     Mr. Das : Yes, my lord, I did.

     The Chief Justice : Then it rests with your admission in the Sessions Court.

     Mr. Das: Absolutely, my Lord.

     Mr. Das : Mr. Woodruffe in his book also said that admission by Counsel is inadmissible.

     The Chief Justice : It cannot be any admission if it was made at the close of the case.

Page 339