The Alipore Bomb Trial

FORTY-FOURTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

     Mr. Das continuing his reply on behalf of the appellants said that in February; 1909, Nirapado was nineteen years of age. Both the Assessors found him not guilty, one of them being of opinion that the conspirators made use of Nirapado in doing very minor . works. The Sessions Judge found him guilty under Sections 121

Page 341

(A) and 122 and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment. In this case Mr. Norton had first referred to the watch witnesses. Mr. Das submitted that the evidence of the watch witnesses was not reliable. Much had been said by the prosecution as to Nirapada’s presence at N o. 15, Gopi Mohon Dutt`s Lane, he being arrested there on the 2^nd May. Mr. Das submitted Nirapada had nothing to do with the house when he was arrested, he was sleeping outside the room, the door of which was locked from inside. Mr. Das next dealt with the documents. The first document used was the rent receipt, which did not mention Nirapada’s name. His connection with the rent receipt depended upon the evidence of Manmatha Das. The question was whether their Lordships would rely upon the evidence of the man who never saw Nirapado either before or afterwards. It might be another case of honest mistake on the part of this witness. Further it had not been proved that Amarendra was another alias of Nirapado. Counsel submitted that Monmatha's evidence was very suspicious, and could not be relied upon. Counsel submitted that the evidence was not clear that Nirapado was a conspirator. Whether he knew anything or nothing at all was not clear.

     The Chief Justice : Supposing he was at the garden.

     Mr. Das: Even if he was at the garden, and that depends on the two incidents of the 20^th and the 21^st , it does not show how much he knew of the conspiracy. It may be the case, according to the view one of the Assessors has taken, that they used to make him do minor work.

     Mr. Das then took up the case of the Sylhet brothers, Susil and Biren, and said that he would deal with the case of Susil first. His learned friend had referred to numerous documents in connection with Susil’s case, but he ventured to submit that the issue lay in a very narrow compass. The first observation he desired to make in reply was that as a matter of fact there was no evidence in the case on which their Lordships could say that a particular document was found in the possession of a particular accused. So far as the letters were concerned the search list did not give their Lordships a clue or assist their Lordships in any way. Therefore it was impossible for any witness however strong his memory might be, when there were 700 to 800 letters, to say that a particular letter was found in the south house or the north house or the west house.

     Mr. Carnduff, J : In which house was the bag found ?

     Mr. Das : In the south. There were eight letters in it.

     The Chief Justice : Have you any authority on the question of possession ?

Page 342

     Mr. Das : No. We always act upon the ground that there must be exclusive possession. I submit that is the law as laid down in the cases. There is an Allahabad case and other cases in point.

     The Chief Justice: Of course if you can show joint possession that would be equally good. If you can show that a document is in the possession of A and B in the sense that it is in their joint possession then it is open as against A and B to show exclusive possession, but one must distinguish that from a case where the possession is ambiguous and has not been proved to be joint.

     Mr. Das : That is exactly my submission. The Chief Justice: I was trying to recall a case analogous on this point in the Weekly Reporter. It was a case, as far as I recollect, of murder.

     Mr. Das: I will try to place that case before your Lordships to-morrow.

     The Chief Justice: It bears on this principle of law that you cannot treat ambiguity as being the same as joint possession.

     Mr. Das: In this country the leading case on the point is Haribole Chunder's case. There is this difference however, namely, that in that case the document was found in a box which belonged to the accused and he had the key.

     Counsel then referred to the letters and said that he did not see how these letters could assist their Lordships in coming to the conclusion that Susil was a conspirator.

     Counsel then asked their Lordships to consider the verdict of the Assessors, who found Susil not guilty. Unless they found that the verdict of the Assessors was opposed to the evidence their Lordships would give effect to that verdict.

      The Chief Justice : There is one thing. You did not say anything about the bamboo guns, daggers, etc.

     Mr. Das : I would advise your Lordships to look at them.

     Mr. Norton : You cannot kill a man with a bamboo gun, etc.

     Carnduff J: They were there for the purpose of drilling. .

     Mr. Norton: Yes.

     The Chief Justice : I understand that they are at Alipore ?

     Mr. Norton : Yes, I will get them up.

     Mr. Das: It would be very bad thing for all of us if our boys should not have " Samitis " for physical culture because the Yugantur wrote about the " Samities."

     Mr. Das then went on dealing with the case of Birendra Chandra Sen, who was only one year older than Susil. In this case also the same consideration arose as to what was the effect of the

Page 343

documents that were found at Sylhet. A. large number of letters were used against this appellant, most of which were no evidence . against him. Mr. Das had not concluded when the Court rose for the day.

Page 344