The Alipore Bomb Trial

TWENTY-THIRD DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

 Mr. Chukervarti continuing his address said that on Thursday he was dealing with the question about the Chhatrabhandar being concerned with the conspiracy and in order to formulate matters, which were alleged for the purpose of establishing that proposition by the Crown, Counsel desired to place before their Lordships the summary of the grounds of suspicion. One of them was that there was a provision that thirty percent. of the profits should be devoted to the benefit of the public. With

Page 274

regard to this particular complaint he need not labour because the learned Judge had pointed out that in point of fact the limited Company, which came into existence after August 1906, took the place of another students concern, which was known as the Chhatrabhandar Stores. This Chhatrabhandar Stores had a similar provision and apparently that provision was introduced for the purpose of attracting shareholders. That provision was in fact borrowed not only from the predecessor institution but also from other institutions. Until Mr. Chuckervarti heard any question, raised on behalf of the Crown to discredit that finding of the Sessions Judge he was quite content to take his stand on that. With regard to the personnel of the directorate of the Chhatrabhandar, as compared to the personnel of the intended limited printing company by Nikhileswar the suggestion was, and that suggestion had been accepted by the Sessions Judge, that four persons concerned in the Chhatrabhandar also figured in the intended limited company for printing purposes; these four persons. being Debabrata Bose, a man who had been acquitted, Nikhileshwar Roy Moulick, who was also acquitted, Sarat Chandra Khan, who was a vakil of their Lordship`s Court and Indra Nath Nandi. The case stood in this way. Nikhileswar took over the Sadhana Press sometime in September 1907 from Abinash. From exhibit 1309 it appears "the following persons shall conduct the business at present, Sarat Chandra Khan, Nikhileswar Roy Moulik, Indra Nath Nundi and Debabrata Bose." The document itself was in Bengali and the rules with regard to the intended company were on the back of a form of the Sadhana Press. This was found at Nikhileswar's house on the 29^th August 1908 and the forms did not appear to have been used at all. From that fact therefore, the inference would be that the intended company never came into existence at all. They were however, not left in uncertainty with regard to it. From the evidence of Purna Chandra Lahiri it appeared that he never heard of or never came across any limited company of the name referred to there. There was also evidence of Pabitra on that point.

     Mr. Norton : I will accept that.

     Mr. Chukervarti; That relieves me. However, my submission is this. The limited Company remains only in project and never comes into existence at all ; because it was proposed that four of the persons who were also concerned with the Chhatrabhandar in some capacity or other, had their names mentioned in the proposed company ; and therefore that establishes what ? - the relationship between the Chhatrabhandar on the one hand and the members of the limited company on the other. And because the limited company was to take the place of the Sadhana Press, therefore they must be taken to be connected with the Sadhana Press; and therefore because the Yugantar used to be published from the Sadhana Press. the Yugantar was also

Page 275

connected. Is that the way to establish the conspiracy ? Jugantar is a conspirator and Chhatrabhandar is, therefore, a conspirator in this particular line of reasoning.

     Continuing Mr. Chuckervarti said that the Sessions Judge had referred to one matter and said that apparently this project of the limited company came into existence at or about the same time as the registration of the Chhatrabhandar in August 1906. The Sessions Judge was clearly in error with regard to that because it was not until September 1907 that Nikhileswar had anything whatever to do with the Sadhana Press, when he took it over from Abinash. There was another matter and that was this. The prospectus which he showed to their Lordships on Thursday, did not show the place where it was printed. Exhibit 1252 did not bear on the face of it the place of printing. But in point of fact the articles of association which was exhibit 78 and which were registered on the 3^rd August 1906 showed that the articles for Chhatrabhandar Ltd. were printed at the Kamala Printing Works by a man of the name of Bisveswar Prasanno Roy. He was ca led as a witness and he supported the fact that the memorandum and articles of association were printed at his place. In the middle of his examination-in-chief their Lordships would find the following note "Mr. Norton says his case is that the Kamala Press is a part of the conspiracy and perhaps the witness was also a member of it." This did not find favour with the Sessions Judge at all and he said it was extremely unfair to the witness. Mr. Chuckervarti then referred to the examination-in-chief of Pabitra, who was one of the directors of the Chhatrabhandar and who said : "I cannot say why the name of the press was not printed on it." The suggestion on behalf of the Crown was that although the articles of association showed that they were printed in the Kamala Press, that was untrue, they must have been printed at the Jugantar Press. This question was put in the examination-in- chief : "Can you swear that the prospectus was not printed at the Jugantar Press ?" The answer was; "it was not."

     The next question was the inference to be drawn from the language of the preface, which was written after the registration. Counsel then read the preface.

     The Chief Justice: Is this the case that the Corporation is a member of the conspiracy ?

     Mr. Chuckervarti: Not exactly that but all concerned in the directorate and the management—the directors, the secretary and the auditors are all conspirators.

     Mr. Norton: In consequence of the finding of the learned Judge I do not wish to revive that point of the argument. I am going to rely on it for the purpose of showing the connection between the per sons whose names were printed on the prospectus of the Chhatrabhandar

Page 276

and the persons who were associated with the Yugantar. This Chhatrabhandar was used for the purpose of distributing seditious documents.

    The Chief Justice: Then your case is that it was an organisation innocent in its origin but afterwards it was used by the conspirators for this purpose ?

     Mr. Norton : Yes.

     The Chief Justice : It was a Council of Communication ?

     Mr. Norton : Yes.

     The Chief Justice: Was it used by the conspirators for the purpose of distributing their news ?

     Mr. Norton : Yes, by reaching young men all over Bengal.

     The Chief Justice : You mean by distributing seditious literature ?

     Mr. Norton : Yes.

     The Chief Justice : You associate those who managed the Chhatrabhandar with the conspiracy ?

     Mr. Norton : Some of them. I say my learned friend's client was put on there for the purpose of distributing sedition. Mr. Chuckervarti then read the evidence of the various witnesses by which the prosecution sought to prove Indra Nath's connection with the Chhatrabhandar and said, the suggestion was that Indra Nath was put on the Board of the Chhatrabhandar by the conspirators to carry out the purposes of the conspiracy. There was absolutely no evidence, in fact the evidence was the other way —that the Chhatrabhandar had branches in the country.

     Turning to the connection as suggested by the prosecution, between the Jugantar and Indra. Nath, Counsel said that there were eight searches of the Jugantar beginning from the 1^st July 1907 and apparently ending on the 23^rd July 1909, for a period of twelve months from time to time. A warning was given by the Government to the paper some time in June or July 1907 and searches took place at various places where the Jugantar office was, but nothing of an incriminating nature connecting Indra Nath with the Jugantar or connecting the Chhatrabhandar with the Jugantar was produced in the course of the searches or anything connecting Indra Nath or the Chhatrabhandar with the Sadhana Press from which the Jugantar was published.

     Their Lordships would find, continued Counsel, that but for the fact of these injuries the Sessions Judge's view of the evidence —evidence stronger even than the evidence adduced against Indra Nath—would have been the same as the view he took with regard to the cases of Provash Chandra De and two other accused. The

Page 277

fact which operated in the mind of the Sessions Judge and which was pressed upon his attention was the inference to be drawn from the existence of these injuries on Indra Nath’s hands and the marks on Indra Nath’s person.

     The story with regard to the injuries was that an explosion was heard at 37, College Street. It was alleged that the explosion took place about the 6^th or 7^th May between ten and eleven o'clock in the day. The evidence with regard to that was the evidence of two nurses of the Medical College Hospital and that of Colonel Jordan who examined Indra Nath on the 2^nd June after his arrest.

     Counsel then read the evidence of the nurse Burke and that of Col. Jordan. He next read the evidence with regard to the injuries and marks on Indra Nath.

     The Chief Justice : Are any presumptions forthcoming ?

     Mr. Chuckervarti : No. With regard to that your Lordships will bear in mind that his father is a doctor.

     The Chief Justice : Prescriptions of the chemists ?

     Mr. Chuckervarti : There was none produced.

     The Chief Justice: Was there any test applied for the purpose of showing conclusively whether it was gun powder or not ?

     Mr. Chuckervarti : No. Microscopical examination will have conclusively proved that there were small particles of unconsumed carbon which stuck to the skin.

     Carnduff, J : Is there any authority for that ?

     Mr. Chuckervarti : I am much obliged to your Lordship. I will produce it.

     Mr. Norton : Col. Jordan was not asked that question.

     Mr. Chuckervarti : Our grievances are these ; Where there is evidence, direct evidence, for the establishment of a crime there it becomes the question of credibility or not. But if a crime is to be established on circumstantial evidence, as it is admitted to have been done in this case my submission is that it is for the prosecution to establish that no other alternative is the reasonable probability. First take the injuries on the hands. Col. Jordan's evidence, so far as those injuries were concerned, is consistent with what was said on the occasion.

     Mr. Chuckervarti : With regard to the position of injuries I will make one remark. Col. Jordan says that the dhoti won have protected Indra. If the injury was of such character that the left hand was blown off and the right hand was injured, the dhoti would have been no protection at all. Your Lordships know what the nature of a dhoti is. It would afford hardly any protection.

Page 278

     The Chief Justice : What puzzles me is this. I do not know what happened ; whether it was gun powder ; whether it was burnt ; or what was the condition of the gunpowder ; or what was its position.

     Mr. Chuckervarti : I don’t know what is their ease.

     The Chief Justice : Would it be a bomb ?

     Mr. Chuckervarti ; If the bombs were exploded I don't think it would have only blown off the hands. The case for the prosecution is that so far as the bombs, which have been produced in this case, are concerned they are not made of gunpowder at all. They are made of picric acid or some other explosives like that.

     The Chief Justice: Is there any evidence that gun powder if not enclosed in some fine space would cause that kind of explosion ?

     Mr. Chuckervarti: No evidence on the record. We do not know what the theory of the prosecution is as to how this accident happened—with gunpowder or not. So far as the learned Judge is concerned it is difficult to say what the Ending is as to the way in which the gunpowder was used or why it was used.

     Referring to the case for the defence as to the existence of the marks on Indra’s body, Mr. Chuckervarti said that the prosecution was not for the purpose of conviction. Their Lordships had held that repeatedly in 8 Calcutta 121, 10 Calcutta 140 and only the other day in connection with the case of Jadu Lal. Counsel submitted that it did not exonerate the prosecution to say that because Col. Nandi was Indra’s father, it was not for the prosecution to call him. If the object was the ascertainment of truth it was incumbent on the prosecution to have called Col. Nandi. In addition to that there was the power in the Court. It was for the Court to say that Col. Nandi's evidence was necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. The Judge disbelieved the evidence of Baghu Nath, Pabitra. and Sarada with regard to the existence of the marks.

     Continuing Mr. Chuckervarti said that according to the prosecution Indranath was the collector of arms and ammunitions. Could their Lordships conceive that on the 5^th or 6^th May the appellant after reading the accounts of sensational arrests in the garden and other places on the 2^nd May, would sit down to make experiments in broad day light in a room, just in front of the Medical College ? The garden was then in the custody of the police and the men to whom they were to be supplied were in jail : for whom would he do that ? Even assuming everything against the appellant they could not draw any inference from that at all.

     After then dealing with the Endings of the articles at 37, College Street, Counsel went on to deal with the Jamalpur incident. He said

Page 279

that the judgment in that case should not have been used in this case.

     The Court then rose for the day.

Page 280