The Alipore Bomb Trial

FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

     The further hearing of the Alipore Bomb Case reference was resumed to-day when the Advocate-General, who appeared in support of the conviction, said that it was scarcely necessary for him to emphasise the exceptional gravity and importance of this case, the investigation of which from its initial stages up to the present time had occupied very nearly two years. The case was of the utmost importance from the point of view not only of the five accused, who stood at present convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to varying terms of transportation and each of whom had received from his Lordship’s hands a most patient hearing; it was no less important from the point of view of the public and for the vindication of the administration of criminal justice in India.

Page 405

One must feel at the outset the greatest responsibility for all who were concerned in this investigation, including Counsel who represented the appellants. The responsibility in this case was. no less on the learned Judge, who ultimately became the arbiter of the case. Counsel said that he would in this case present the facts and arguments with fairness and moderation from the point of view of one who had the advantage of coming to India without any local prejudices. The case before the Court was a reference under section 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the investigation represented the procedure where the Judges on appeal in a criminal case, were equally divided in their opinion, and such cases are sent before another Judge of the same Court. Having regard to a remark that fell from one of the representatives of the appellants, Counsel would like to indicate the functions of the Judge to whom such a case was referred. Ex hypothesi there must be difference of judicial' opinion and the legislature had advisedly imposed upon the Judge the duty of arriving at an independent judgment and consider the probative effect of the evidence. It followed from that that. it was not a legitimate argument on behalf of the defence to say that there must necessarily be doubt as to the guilt because the Judges had differed. The position was this. To upset the conviction the Third Judge must be regarded essentially as part of the component tribunal and he must find that there was reasonable doubt upon the evidence on which these persons had been convicted, for it must be remembered that these five appellants had been convicted by the Sessions Judge after a very lengthy and extraordinarily patient hearing, and it must also be remembered that the Judge had the very great advantage of watching and observing the demeanour of the witnesses who were presented on the part of the prosecution and the convictions of these five appellants had been affirmed by Mr. Justice Carnduff. the learned Chief Justice differed from him in his conclusions s to the probative effect of the evidence in these five cases. Mr. Chakerverty had referred to Mr. Justice Carnduff’s judgment as a dissenting one. Counsel ventured to think that that was —a totally inaccurate description. Any one or both might ,be regarded as dissentient Judges. The onus lay on the appellants to satisfy the Court that the evidence which had been accepted by the Sessions Judge and upon which he had acted and convicted the accused failed to afford adequate ground for such a conviction. Counsel then dwelt on the nature of the charges against the appellants and observed that in proving conspiracy circumstantial evidence might be sufficient but in this case they had more than circumstantial evidence.

     Counsel then went on dealing with the evidence in the case and had not concluded when the Court rose for the day.

Page 406