The Alipore Bomb Trial

THIRTY-SIXTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

     Mr. Norton continuing his address on behalf of the Crown referred to the evidence of the shadowing witnesses against Sailendra and said that there was no doubt that Sailendra was

     Mr. Norton then dealt with the case against Balkrishna Hari Kane. The evidence against him was documentary and the central pivot of the case for the prosecution against this man was that his name was mentioned by Barin. Kane had all along been alluded to as the Madrasi and his name was not known until the 3^rd or 4^th of May when Barin made a statement `to the police.

     The Chief Justice : How can a statement made by Barin to the police be used for the purpose of showing that Balkrishna was a member of the conspiracy ?

     Mr. Norton : Biswas said " Barin gave me the name of Balkrishna." Who was that Balkrishna? The present accused. It is impossible to say how Balkrishna's name cropped up unless there had been some preliminary observation made with regard to the Madrasi.

     The Chief Justice : At the present moment I will refrain from expressing any opinion. We cannot draw any inference that it was used in a way that would incriminate Balkrishna. All we can do is to treat this evidence to show that a particular name was mentioned by Barin to Biswas.

     Mr. Norton then referred to the slip of paper found at 15, Gopi Mohan Dutt’s Iane, which bore the name " B. H. Kane " and to the Sessions Judge’s judgment regarding the identification of Kane.

     The Chief Justice: The point we are concerned with is whether that B. H. Kane is this Balkrishna Hari Kane.

     Mr. Norton: Yes. The resemblance between B. H. Kane and the accused is very close. We have also the circumstances that a

Page 317

man, named Balkrishna Hari Kane, is one of the accused, and that, if the evidence is true, he was seen in Calcutta on various dates and was followed to 15 Gopi Mohan Dutt’s Lane, where a piece of paper with his name and address was found. That is exceptionally strong evidence to justify the inference being drawn that it is the same man. That is a question of circumstantial evidence apart from the question of writing.

     Mr. Norton then dealt with the cases of Taranath who had absconded and Indranath. The case against Taranath was that as far back as 1906, contemporaneous with the " Yugantar" he had allied himself with that newspaper, which the prosecution said, was one of the main instruments of the conspiracy for the purpose of pushing the doctrines of that conspiracy and made himself an instrument for the propagation of these doctrines. The connection between him and Abinash is clearly demonstrated from the correspondence as also the connection later on between him and Indranath. So far as Taranath himself was concerned, the prosecution started with the fact that on the 19^th May 1908, a search was made by the police at 4, Raja’s Lane.

     The Chief Justice: Taranath has not been charged in this case.

     Mr. Norton : He has absconded and a warrant has been issued for his arrest.

     Continuing Mr. Norton said that at the search at 4, Raja’s Lane, was found a box containing a very large quantity of cartridges. There were between 1,400 to 1,500 cartridges of all sizes and calibers. In the same box was also found a quantity of correspondence which was even more important than the ammunition.

     Turning to the case against Indranath Counsel referred to the injuries on Indranath’s hands and said that the English writing on the three post cards, exhibits 1083, 1084 and 1085, had been held by the Sessions Judge to be the same as the handwriting on exhibits 78-1A and 78-1B which were proved to be in Indranath’s writing. In the Sessions Court, Indranath refused to say anything about these postcards and all that his Counsel said was that they were not proved to be in Indranath’s writing.

     Mr. Norton read a booklet called Panchab by Siromoni found in Taranath’s box and a manuscript article headed "Ready to die." Counsel next referred to a number of letters found in Taranath’s box. `There was one letter which referred to cartridges and which was found by the Sessions Judge to be in the handwriting of lndranath.

     Continuing Mr. Norton said that the letter showed Indranath’s past connection with Taranath, Nibaran, Bhupen and Abinash.

Page 318

The case against Indranath was partly oral and partly documentary. He was arrested on the 23^rd June at his father’s house at 37, College Street. He was the armourer of the conspiracy and there was evidence that he dealt in cartridges.

     Counsel next referred to the oral evidence and the depositions of two nurses who heard a loud report at the house of Col. Nundi on either the 6^th or 7^th of June.

     Mr. Norton observed that according to Col. Jordan the marks could not have been caused by anything else but gunpowder. The Chief Justice observed that the defence was that they were due to skin disease or to gunpowder explosion long before the accident on the hand.

     Mr. Norton suggested that the defence did not disclose the real story and made all sorts of suggestions. Col. Jordan was cross-examined on that point by suggestions of some diseases. The defence did not produce any evidence to support their theory.

     The Court then rose for the day.

Page 319