The Alipore Bomb Trial

Sixteenth Day's Proceedings

Mr. Das continuing his address said that when the Court rose on Wednesday he was placing the judgment with regard to Sishir Kumar Ghosh before their Lordships.

     Counsel read the portion of the judgment relating to Sishir and submitted, it would have been a very different judgment had not the Sessions Judge considered the judgment in the Jamalpur , case and had he not taken it as a fact that Sishir was connected with the Yugantar. Both these pieces of evidence, Counsel

Page 254

submitted, were not evidence in the case. Where there was any evidence dealing with the case of the other persons, the Sessions Judge had explained it away on the ground that it might refer to some one else. The Sessions Judge’s reasons for holding that the entries on the account hook referred to Sishir were that Sishir was connected with the Yugantur and that he was "a man of that disposition." There was no evidence at all on the record to show that Sishir was at the garden at all except as disclosed by the Bombay letters. If the Sessions Judge took it that except for those two facts, the journey to Bombay was innocent, then there was nothing against Sishir upon which a conviction could be based. Sishir was shown not to have been in the garden at a time when any of these overt acts took place. He was away from the garden when the more important overt acts were undertaken. Unless their Lordships held- that the entries with regard to February in that account book referred to this Sishir, there was nothing against Sishir. Under these circumstances, it was quite clear that he was not guilty of the offences charged. As a matter of fact, Sishir went to Bombay to join a weaving school there and on his return to Calcutta, as no other accommodation was available, went to the garden where he stayed for a day or two, when he was arrested there. The case against Sishir stood on exactly the same footing as the case against Hemendra Nath Ghose, who had been acquitted.

     Counsel then read Sishir’s confession and said Sishir did deny having received these letters. Sishir might have said that out of fright. It must be borne in mind that Sishir was very ill at the time and had thrice fainted in the dock. He had nothing more to add as regards the case of Sishir.

     Mr. Das then took up the case of Abinash Chandra Bhattacharya, who was convicted under Sections 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life. Both the assessors acquitted him.

     Counsel next went on to say, the case of Abinash was a case in which their Lordships would End that the prosecution wanted to strike at Arabinda through Abinash. He was living with Arabinda at 23 Scott’s Lane and also at 48, Grey Street where he was arrested. Some time ago Abinash was a mohurir in the Court of the District Judge of the 24-Parganas. After that, in May 1907, he purchased the Sadhona Press. Counsel would show that that was a purely business transaction. The "Yugantar" newspaper began to be printed in the Sadhona Press in May or June 1907. In July 1907 Abinash was prosecuted for sedition with reference to an article which appeared in the " Yugantar " of the 30^th July. In that case he was acquitted. The prosecution could not prove his connection with the " Yugantar" in any other way except that he was the owner of the press where the

Page 255

"Yugnatar" was printed. It was also proved in that case that that issue of the " Yugantar" was not printed there but elsewhere. After his acquittal — the evidence as regards that was clear upon the record — he severed all connection with the Yugantar and sold the press to a man named Nikhileswar Ray Moulick.

     Continuing Counsel said, their Lordships would find that after Abinash’s acquittal on the 2^nd September, the printing of the Yugantar was stopped until November. In November, Abinash wrote to the postal authorities that he had severed his connection with the Yugantar and that any letters addressed to him as manager should be sent to the then manager. There were altogether eight searches of the Yugantar commencing in July, 1907, and ending in April, 1908. In not one of the searches was Abinash ever found except in the first search on the 1^st July, 1907, at 41 Champatolla Lane where he had his press. Besides as regards his connection with Arabinda, he seemed to have been devoted to Arabinda and looked after Arabinda’s household affairs. There was nothing in the evidence to suggest that Abinash was a conspirator. When Abinash left the Yugantar, he had to live somehow and he selected certain articles from the Yugantar, and published them in book form, the name of the hook being "Mookti Kone Pathe.” All these were articles which appeared in the Yugantar up to, and not later than December 1906. There was no prosecution for sedition with reference to any of these articles.

     Carnduff J. Where did he publish them ?

     Mr. Das: In January 1907. It was not done surreptitiously. It was registered and openly published.

     Counsel continuing said that when Inspector Purna Chandra Lahiri searched the press on the 1^st July, he found the manuscript and proofs of this book "Mookti Kon Pathe" and took them away for inspection, but no prosecution was started. In June 1907, the Government sent a warning letter to the Yugantar in which they complained about the recent issues of the Yugantar.

     These were the circumstances, said Mr. Das, under which Abinash published this book but that was not an act of conspiracy. Another book that Abiuash published was "The Modern Art of War." This book was also registered in October 1907 but no steps were ever taken in connection with it although it was before the police and the Government. The case for the defence was that this hook was reviewed in the Government Gazette as a scientific treatise on warfare. It was also reviewed in the newspapers. In not one of the various documents found was the slightest reference made to Abinash as a conspirator. Their Lordships would find that copies of these books were found in the garden but they were fresh as if kept in a library and the pages were uncut.

Page 256

     Counsel then went on to say that in not one of the documents found in the garden was any reference made to Abinash as a conspirator with the exception of one item on some account where it was said that some money was spent in purchasing copies of the "Mookti Kone Pathe." As regards the oral evidence against Abinash, the evidence of everyone of the watch witnesses concerning him had broken down.

     Continuing Mr. Das said that there was nothing in the evidence of the watch witnesses which established guilty knowledge on Abinash's part.

     Counsel would next deal with the documents, with regard to which his submission would be that many of them were not admissible in evidence. Exhibits 130-1 and 130-2 were two receipts for the Government revenue of the garden dated 24^th July 1907 and 25^th July 1906 respectively. .

     The second one contained no reference to Abinash. The first one showed that Abinash deposited the revenue.

     The Chief Justice: I do not suppose it was put in as evidence against Abinash.

     Mr. Norton: It was put in for the purpose of showing connection between Ahinash and Barin. .

     The Chief Justice: How can you do that ? What evidence is there that Abinash did pay ?

     Mr. Norton : Assuming him to be the same man I submit I am entitled to refer to this statement as true——the statement that the revenue was paid by Abinash. Of course I do not say that he was the same man.

     The Chief Justice: I do not know under what section it can be admitted as evidence.

     Mr. Norton: It was found in the garden. I tendered this assuming that Barin asked Abinash to pay the revenue : of course assuming that Abinash was the same man.

     The Chief Justice: Under what section does it come ? There is a very well-known case of an English Railway Company which shows that a receipt of this kind is no evidence at all.

     Mr. Das: That is the principle on which documents are admitted everyday here.

     The Chief Justice : I do not know whether this is an official document.

     Mr. Das : This is not an official document, because it is Khashmahal. Even if it be an official document it must prove itself. It does not prove the particular fact.

Page 257

     The Chief Justice: Yes. That does not prove the statement contained in it.

     Mr. Das: I do not know under what section it was put in. I objected to it.

     Mr. Norton : It is clearly against Barin.

     The Chief Justice : Not against Abinash ?

     Mr. Norton : Having got it I say under the general charge of conspiracy we are entitled to put in that. We say Abinash was a co-conspirator.

     The Chief Justice: Does it appear that this is a statement of Barin ?

     Mr. Norton : I submit not. Under section 10 of Evidence Act I am entitled to use it against Barin.

     The Chief Justice: You said just now this is not a statement of Barin.

     Mr. Norton : My suggestion is that he sent the money through Abinash. He used Abinash as agent to pay the money. Abinash did pay the money and therefore is name is there.

     Mr. Das : There are two conditions of section 10 of the Evidence Act. If it is under section 10 then it must be with reference to the conspiracy. This rent Barin would pay, whether he was a conspirator or not, as the owner of the garden. I submit it is no evidence. In the second place assuming that it is evidence it does not prove anything against him.

     Mr. Das then placed several documents before their Lordships and submitted that none of them showed that Abinash was a conspirator.

Page 258