The Alipore Bomb Trial

Fourteenth Day's Proceedings

Mr. Das continuing his address said that on the previous day. he was dealing with the case of Upendra Nath Banerjee and the "monkey" letter. Counsel had already submitted that this was a suspicious letter the address whereof seemed to be torn of and the postscript seemed to be in another ink. It was the postscript which established the connection between the garden and Seal’s Lodge. There was no evidence as to who wrote that letter. The Sessions Judge compared the handwriting with that of another letter, with which Counsel would deal in connection with the case of Sudhir.

     The next document was exhibit 776 which was a slip of paper. It contained "Upen Babu, just little before I wrote a letter and posted it. 2^nd Chaitra, Sunday" It was not proved in whose handwriting it was or which Upen Babu it meant.

     Continuing Mr. Das said that the next exhibit was e. money-order receipt which was dated the 13^th February and signed by a man of the name of Prokash Chandra Ghose. It was sent to Upendra Nath Banerjee at his garden address. The receipt bore the signature of Upen and that of Indra. Bhusan Roy Choudhury as a witness. The post office from which the money order was delivered was the Bagbazar Post Office.

     Carnduff J: Was this found in the garden ?

      Mr. Das : It was produced by the post office authorities. It is a receipt.

     Continuing Mr. Das said that Upendra was an educated man and he knew how to sign his name. Why should his signature be witnessed. That procedure was necessary in case of a man who could not write his name.

     Mr. Das then referred to exhibit 1007 which was signed by one S. Ghose. The case for the prosecution was that it was Sudhir. Counsel would deal with this when he would take up the case

Page 249

of Sudhir. This exhibit showed that money was sent to Upendra at 32, Mooraripukur Road, on the 2^nd March, 1908. Here they did not find Upendra’s signature being witnessed by any body.

      Those were all the documents upon which prosecution relied to prove Upendru's connection with the Seal‘s Lodge. Counsel submitted that none of those documents had been proved in any way. The money orders were produced by the poet office authorities and the other two documents were found at the Seal’s Lodge. They were not found in possession of Upendra nor of any of the accused.

     Continuing Mr. Das said that to corroborate the evidence, the prosecution had tried to prove Upendra's presence at the Seal's Lodge. Tarini Rout gave evidence upon that point. Counsel then referred to exhibit 201, an account book and said that that note book contained the entry of "U. B.", which, the prosecution said, meant Upendra Nath Banerji.

     There was another piece of oral evidence to the effect that on the 1^st July, 1907, Inspector Lahiri went to search Champatolla Road in connection with the Yugantar where he found Upendra seated rubbing oil. Counsel did not think that it would serve any useful purpose by placing that evidence. Counsel also would not deal with the watch witnesses because the Sessions Judge did not refer to them in his Judgment. If Mr. Norton dealt with them, Mr. Das would show that the whole of it resolved itself into the evidence of Satish and Suresh.

     The next case Mr. Das would take was that of Rishikesh Kanjilal, who was arrested at Chatra near Serampur on the 10^th May. On the 10th May his house was searched at 8 A. M. After that he was arrested and the Inspector left the place with him at about 12 o’clock or 1 o’clock. The Inspector said — Couusel was quoting the Inspector’s own words —that in the train Rishikesh showed a disposition to confess. He got out at Howrah that very afternoon and Rishikesh was taken from there to Kyd Street, the house of the Commissioner of Police, and from there to Royd Street, the Calcutta Detective office, where things and articles were made over to Inspector Gupta. Rishikesh was taken from there to 56, Amherst Street the place where Ramsaday Mookherjee of the Bengal C. I. D. used to live. The evidence was that Rishikesh was taken to Amherst Street where questions were put to him by Ram Saday and Inspector Kedareshur. Kedareshur took down the answers of the accused. Rishikesh was kept the whole night at 56, Amherst Street, and was produced before Mr. Birley at 10 a. m. the 11^th May. Counsel submitted if the accused showed a disposition to confess why was he not taken at once before the Magistrate and put up to have his confession recorded ? Why was it necessary that questions should be put to him by Ramsoday and that he

Page 250

should be taken from house to house and kept at Amherst Street the whole night before being produced before the Magistrate.

     Counsel then read the confession made by Rishikesh from which it appeared that he did not become a member of the conspiracy, but he was making his way towards it. So far as the overt acts were concerned, he was not taken into confidence with regard to the Kharagpur incident, but with regard to the futile attempt for which Rishikesh's assistance was required. The whole question was whether he was a member of that conspiracy so as to bring him under section 121A. Counsel submitted that the evidence did not quite come up to the standard as there was no evidence.

     Mr. Das then referred to the incident of the 5^th November, which was a futile attempt for which Rishikesh’s assistance was required. It was an incident of his hiring a carriage and going to Chandernagore.

     Mr. Das then referred to some exhibits, which were letters, and said that those referred to Swadeshi and relief work and they did not prove any conspiracy. Exhibit 797 was supposed to be a rough plan of Ramsoday’s house in Amherst Street. It showed the junction between Harrison Road and Amherst Street. Ramsoday's house would be a mile from there. There was nothing in the map to show that the place marked in the map—rather the faint mark—was Ramsoday’s house.

     The Chief Justice : Where was it found ?

      Mr. Das : At Chatra.

     Continuing Mr. Das said that the next exhibit against his client was No. 667, which was found at 134, Harrison Road, and it contained a. list of initials. In one place of that document it was written "H, B" The case for the prosecution was that it referred to Rishikesh Kanjilal as Hrishikesh Bhattacharjee.

     Continuing Mr. Das said that in another place Rishikesh’s initial as given as ‘R.. K. Why should there be two different initials in two different places ?

     Exhibit 1415 was a book containing a number of Swami Vivekananda's speeches. There was nothing incriminating in them. The book belonged to Rishikesh and was found in the garden. The prosecution alleged that this book roved Rishi's connection with the garden. Counsel submitted that Rishi and Upendra being known to each other and Upendra being a resident of the garden, the book found its way there. Those were all the documents with regard to Rishikesh.

     M.r. Das then dealt with the watch witnesses. The witnesses who deposed that they had seen Rishikesh at the garden were Satish Chandra Banerjee, Chandi Charan Mukherjee, and Narendra

Page 251

Nath Mullick. Counsel read their evidence and said that the evidence of Satish and Chandi were not relied upon by the Sessions Judge on many points. The only evidence he relied on was that of Narendra, whose evidence was of a very general character. Counsel submitted that their Lordships could hardly rely upon a bare statement like that. No incident was alluded in to by that witness.

     Continuing Mr. Das said that was the whole of the case against Rishikesh Kanjilal. That concluded the cases of all the appellants against whom there were confessions. There were two other confessing appellants, Sudhir and Krishna Jiban, but their confessions, according to the Sessions Judge, did not amount to confessions and so Counsel would not deal with them now. With regard to the confessions Counsel had already made his submissions. He would new deal with the point as to whether their Lordships would accept the confession of one of the accused against the others. All the confessions were retracted.

     Mr. Das then said that the question whether their Lordships would accept the confessions or not depended on the construction of section 310 of the Evidence Act. Counsel read Section 30 and said that the first question was as to whether the appellants were jointly tried for the same offence. Counsel had already dealt with that point and he would not deal with it again. The second point was the meaning to be attached to the words " may be taken into consideration " in the section and that again would depend on whether those statements made by them amounted to confessions as to the offence charged. Unless and until the confessions on the face of them amounted to confessions of the offence with which they were charged, they went out of section 30. Counsel would submit that on the face of those documents they could not amount to confessions. They might be admissions. Counsel then cited 24,. Weekly Reporter, page 42, and I. L. R. 4, Calcutta, page 483, in support of his contention. Counsel next referred to what the Sessions Judge had done First of all, he quoted from the Jugantar, then he referred to the confessions and afterwards he said, " I therefore hold there was a conspiracy to wage war." The next question to which he directed himself was merely this: " Who were the persons who were connected"

     The Chief Justice: Is not that rather a defect in form than defect in substance.

     Mr. Das: The Sessions Judge has not made any distinction amongst the different accused when he was considering the question as to whether there was or was not a conspiracy charged.

     The Chief Justice: Your proposition is this. Let us take the confession of Barin for instance. Assuming for the sake of argument

Page 252

 that Barin had said there was a conspiracy in order to establish the membership of the conspiracy, as against some one mentioned by Barin, is it required that there should be evidence of some kind over and above the fact that his name was mentioned ?

     Mr. Das ; That evidence must be sufficient by itself to establish the conspiracy.

      Mr. Das continuing said that he would next deal with the case of Paresh Chandra Maulik. He was acquitted by one of the assessors but was convicted by the other as well as the Judge. The documentary evidences as against this accused were several and Counsel would deal with exhibit 8l. first, which was a very important piece of evidence according to the prosecution point of view. The exhibit 81 was an envelope, in which, the prosecution said, was a. letter, exhibit 80. The letter was addressed to Paresh at 44-3 Harrison Road. The envelope contained the post mark of Chilmari, while the letter was written from Jessore. . Mr. Das submitted that that envelope could not have contained that letter. The letter was addressed to Srijut Paresh.

     The Chief Justice: The word ‘Srijut' indicates that the addressee must be younger in years.

     Mr. Das : Yes. In the body of the letter it was written "Apanadar" (yours), which is addressed only to the elders. According to the envelope the letter was addressed to a younger person and according to the letter it was written to a person who was older than the writer.

     The Court then rose for the day.

Page 253