The Alipore Bomb Trial

THIRTY-FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

     Mr. Norton continuing his address on behalf of the Crown dealt with the remaining exhibits which related to Nirapada. In this connection Counsel said that Nirmal was connected with the

Page 314

     "Chatra Bhandar " as his name appeared in one of the vouchers of the Bhandar.

     The Chief Justice asked what evidence there was to prove that it was Nirmal’s signature.

     Mr. Norton said that was proved by comparison with Nirmal’s signature before the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.

     Mr. Das said that those two documents had not been put in and proved and hence there was no evidence that this was Nirmal’s signature.

     The Chief Justice : It is incidents like this which make us doubtful from time to time as to the evidence submitted. There is not a tittle of evidence to prove that it was Nirmal’s writing, but yet it is put forward as having been proved. That is not the way ° in which the case for the Crown should be put forward.

     Mr. Norton ; I am sorry to hear your Lordship say that. The letter was put in for the purpose of showing the association of these persons with the "Chatra Bhandar " in order to enable the Assessors to come to a conclusion.

     The Chief Justice : That is quite wrong.

    Mr. Norton : Suppose, you take a case in which you cannot actually prove the writing but there are circumstances.

     The Chief Justice : Then you cannot prove it.

     Mr. Norton: I will put my case in this way and take your Lordships’ ruling on it. I say that these accounts, assuming their origin is genuine, come from an Association with regard to which at any rate some persons other than Nirmal, have been proved to have been associated with. With regard to the signatures of the other persons there is evidence of comparison. Some of these other persons, who are among the accused are certainly shown to have been connected with the local "Chatra Bhandar " and among them is one who is not proved to have any connection with the "Chatra Bhandar" but is connected with these other persons by different documents; even if I cannot prove the writing of this other man to be his in consequence of the absence of comparison, am I not en- titled to suggest that under the circumstances these other documents confirm the view that that writing is this other man’s ?

     The Chief Justice: We should have to investigate the whole history of the "Chatra Bhandar." We would have to find out the names of the persons who conducted the "Chatra Bhandar," the names of the clerks and those who ordinarily wrote letters before we could come to any conclusion that Nirmal was proved to be Nirapada. Are you in a position to prove that ?

     Mr. Norton : No.

Page 315

     The Chief Justice : We are trying men for offences which may involve their lives. It is the duty of the Crown to place before us evidence on which we can act with safety.

     Mr. Norton : I am sorry to hear your Lordship say that the case for the Crown has not been conducted in the way that it ought to have been. That was my view of the law. If I made a mistake I must take the consequences. But I certainly did not put this in with the object of getting evidence.

     The Chief Justice : The document is perfectly properly put in. But it is not proved on the evidence at present placed before us and before the Sessions Judge that it was written by Nirmal.

     Counsel then went on to say that so far as Nirnnal was concerned he would drop this point but with regard to the others there was proof. The persons who were connected with the "Chatra Bhandar ” were Abinash, Satyendra, Indra Nath, Sishir, Barindra and Abinash Chandra Chakraburty.

     Mr. Norton then dealt with the case against Abinash. He said that Abinash was arrested on the 2^nd May 1908 at 448 Grey Street, by Superintendent Creagan and Inspector Gupta. Abinash was acting in concert with Barindra in conducting the "Yugantar" and in connection with the "Yugantar" he with the aid of Upendra Nath, ran its off shoots, namely, the "Mookti Kane Path" and "Vartaman Rananity" of which nearly three hundred to four hundred copies were recovered from the appellant at the search. It was said that Abinash transferred his ownership in the "Yugantar" to somebody else but Counsel denied that on the strength of Barin’s own statement. In connection with the conspiracy Abiuash lived for some two or three months at 23, Scott’s Lane, with his friend Sailendra. The part which Abinash played in the organisation of the conspiracy was that it was he who was mainly responsible for the appeal which was made to the young men of Bengal on behalf of the "Yugantar" He intended to carry on the literary part of his efforts by issuing the "Navasakti" newspaper and in connection with this venture he issued a prospectus intimating that the " Navasakti" would be conducted by the past members of the "Yugantar” staff. Abinash was closely associated with Barindra throughout and had been described by Barindra as his right hand and lieutenant. He was also all along associated with Sailendra and both of them were associated at 48 Grey Street, on the 2^nd May. Abinash was a very effective member of the. conspiracy for through the columns of his paper he carried on the seditious propaganda of — the conspirators throughout the whole of Bengal. There was evidence to show what effect his writings had on the minds of the ` young men of Bengal.

     Counsel then dealt with the exhibits relating to Abinash and read the evidence of the shadowing witnesses.

Page 316

     Mr. Norton then dealt with the case of Sailendra Nath Bose. So far as they could End from the first to the last, he was connected with Abinash. Sailendra was always living with Abinash in the same house. He was also connected with 23, Scott’s Lane, and 48, Grey Street, the Yugantar and the Sil’s Lodge. He was sub- manager of the "Yugantar" and was arrested at the "Navasakti ” office. It might be that he took a humble part but he did as best as he could. After reading the judgment of the Sessions Judge, where he dealt with Sailendra, Counsel referred to the exhibits, which implicated Sailendra.

     Counsel had not concluded when the Court rose for the day. .

Page 317