The Alipore Bomb Trial

FIFTEENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

DEFENCE REPLY.

     Babu Bejoy Krishna Bose, vakil, was called upon to reply on behalf of Krishna Jibon Sanyal and Sailendra Nath Bose. He said :—My Lord, so far as my two clients are concerned, I need not take up your Lordship’s time by replying to all the general observations made by the learned Advocate-General except a few which directly concern. my clients. But I can not altogether remain silent and let the opportunity pass without strongly protesting against certain observations made by the Counsel as showing the attitude of mind with which he approached the consideration of this case. Today, my Lord, at 3-20 p m., while referring to the pictures of Arabindo Ghose, Surendranath Banerjea, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bepin Chandra Pal &c., that were found at Indra Nundy’s house, the learned Advocate-General said that "Indra was surrounded by the enemies of British Rule in India". Of all the mischievous utterances that we have heard, it is, my Lord, the most mischievous. What authority had he to say this ? Where is the evidence on which he can rely for this sweeping libel ? I do not hold any brief for any of these gentlemen; but to characterise Babu Surendra Nath and others as enemies of British Rule, is the greatest libel against these gentlemen. Then again, my Lord, noticing Sree Durga, on the top of several letters, the learned Advocate-General ferretted out conspiracy from the uniformity of these words appearing on the letters and then proceeded to characterise Sree Durga as the "goddess of violence and blood-shed." Sree Durga is the goddess of peace, of beauty and of joy, and I can only ascribe this remark to the learned Counsel’s ignorance of this country. Sitting on the Original Side of this Court, my Lord, your Lordship must have come across thousands of account books of Hindu firms beginning on the top with Sree Durga. Are the partners of these firms all conspirators ? And this was inexcusable, my Lord, when the learned Counsel, making the remark, was assisted by a Bengali gentleman, a vakil of this Court.

Page 413

     Referring to the confession of Krishna Jibon, the learned Counsel said that Krishna Jibon, when brought before the Magistrate, did not say that he disavowed the objects of this hideous conspiracy, and then the learned Advocate-General remarked ‘neither did his pleader disavow here in Court." My Lord, what is the meaning of these words? I know of no law or order or custom or tradition which requires any pleader or Counsel, who appears for the defence, to come to Court and say " My Lord, I hate this conspiracy, I disavow its objects, allow me to proceed with my defence.” We are not here at a meeting of the Legislative Council or addressing from a public platform; but we are here addressing a Court of Justice to vindicate innocence and help justice. We would not have been here unless we were instructed that our clients were innocent and it is their innocence that we are pressing upon the Court. I think, my Lord, it would be highly improper on the part of any pleader or Counsel to say, in a joint trial of many accused persons, that the clients for whom they were appearing were angels and the others on the dock behind are so many blackguards. It is opposed to the best traditions of the Bar and suicidal to the defence.

     The learned Advocate—General again made a sweeping remark that any one found in possession of a single copy of the "Jugantar" is a conspirator. There must have been thousands in this country who must have read the newspaper and at the same time did not agree at all with its policy. Even the learned Sessions Judge himself says that at page 24 of his judgment. Instead of proceeding to consider what evidence there is of conspiracy, the learned Counsel took up a particular appellant and said he was associated with an admitted conspirator who was convicted and therefore he was a conspirator. That shows how blurred his vision was and how biased he was from before.

     And lastly, my Lord, referring to proofs of handwritings, the learned Counsel admitted that there were no proofs but asked your Lordship to look into the papers, found at the searches and taking the paper in hand said "your Lordship would be able to see "coloured lines" which, on inspection, become visible to the eye, till by this 'process you could read them and use them against the accuse persons." This, my Lord, is said to be the elementary rule of the English Law of Evidence. My Lord this elementary and highly illuminating rule I am not aware of ; neither do I care to know. Our Law of Evidence is the Statute Law of 1872, sec. 67 of which enjoins a particular method of proof of handwriting without which your Lordship ought not to consider the letter or document as proved and so can’t use against any accused person. .

     Here the Court rose for the day.

Page 414