The Alipore Bomb Trial

SIXTEENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS.

     The further hearing of the Alipore Bomb Case was resumed today, when Babu Nagendra Nath Banerjee continued his reply in the case of the Sen Brothers of Sylhet. He submitted that when the Advocate-General began his reply he said that he would deal with the cases of the two brothers separately, but unfortunately he used against Susil not only the evidence that specially affected Susil but all the evidence that touched Biren, the other brother. This was prejudicial to the interest of the appellants. He further submitted that the letters and other alleged incriminating documents were found in a house where several persons had access and that the mere fact of their finding would not be of any value against one of them unless there was something in the document itself or in his conduct or statement, which would go especially to connect him with it. There was no evidence adduced by the Crown to prove Susil's connection with any of the conspirators. No less than five hundred letters were found at the search of their house and in not one of them was there any reference to any conspirator or to any place of conspiracy; and regard being had to the fact that the boys were in the habit of treasuring up every bit of correspondence, it was but natural to suppose that if they were connected with the garden conspiracy, some such reference would have been found in that volume of correspondence. The Sessions Judge did not rely upon the evidence of the search witnesses against the two Sen Brothers and therefore, it would be unsafe for the appellate Court to go behind the findings of the Sessions Judge who had the advantage of hearing the witnesses before him. The evidence afforded by the documents was at best corroborative, but it cannot give a conclusive effect to other evidence in the case. The Advocate- General had referred to several letters which applauded Susil as a hero and undoubtedly some of the letters were very objectionable in terms, but Susil could not be held responsible for statements made by others and there was no evidence that he was in any way elated by these letters. On the other hand he was very properly checked by the Superintendent of the School, Babu Satish Chandra Mukerjee, who forbade him to join any meeting held in his honour.

     Referring to the observations regarding the National College, the Vakil submitted that he strongly protested against the observations of the Advocate-General that it was high time that the Government should come down upon the Bengal National College. That institution was serving a very useful purpose and it had on its board the most eminent men of the country, such as Sir Gooroodas Banerjee, Dr. Rash Behari Ghose, Mr. A. Chaudhuri and others, and it had been highly spoken of by several European

Page 415

gentlemen including Government officials. The Advocate-General’s remarks were based on an erroneous supposition that Babu Satish Chandra Mukerjee wrote a letter eulogising Susil on the occasion of the assault on the Inspector. Babu Satish Chandra did nothing of the kind, on the contrary he dissuaded Susil from joining a meeting held by the students to award him a medal.

     Mr. Chakravarti in beginning his reply said :

     Your Lordship has pointed out that it is open to parties to make comments on the evidence on record. But when there is no evidence on the record with reference to a particular matter no comment can be made whether it be in one’s personal knowledge or upon instructions. And I should like to deal first with matters which have been referred to by the Crown counsel without a tittle of evidence on the record to justify them.

     First of all certain prints or photographs were found at No. 37, College Street, of Messrs. Surendranath Banerjee, Lala Lajpat Rai, Arabinda Ghose and Bipin Chandra. Pal. And these gentle- men were described by the learned Advocate-General as enemies of British rule. I am not aware whether these gentlemen ought to have been so described when there was no evidence on the point and specially whether the character of these gentlemen should have been traduced in this way by the Crown counsel in an address on which no action could be taken by these gentlemen. And having made such an observation without any evidence to justify it the Crown counsel went on to implicate my client on the ground of having been in possession of the pictures or prints. Further the evidence shows these pictures or prints were not even in the room of Indranath. I confess I cannot speak with authority as to what the practice or procedure in England in similar matters may be, but I claim some little experience in matters of this kind in this country and here I must say it is quite unusual to travel beyond the records of the case.

     Another luminous idea which was placed before the Court by the Crown counsel is in connection with the invocation Sri Durga. Some mysterious meaning has been attached to this invocation for the purpose of proving conspiracy because the same invocation appeared in the letters put in. This is entirely based upon absolute ignorance. It never struck anybody before because the gentlemen conducting the case knew that they could not attach any sinister meaning to it. And I appeal to your Lordship’s experience in dealing with thousands of vernacular documents with the same invocation. There is no evidence to show that any sinister meaning is to be attached to this invocation and the observations were highly improper.

     Another argument addressed is that Indranath was handling a bomb. There is no evidence on record to show that. On

Page 416

the other hand the evidence is that he could not have done so. Assuming the whole of the evidence on the subject of explosion to be true and that it took place on 6^th or 7^th May as alleged by the prosecution it only shows that Indranath was injured by an explosion of gunpowder. But what then ? How does it show that be was handling a bomb, Major Black’s evidence being that gun- powder was not used in the manufacture of the bombs in this case. What justification is there then in the statement that Indranath was handling a bomb ?

     Another misconception of the evidence is that Taranath’s letters were found in the same box with ammunitions, &c. And there is a further misappreciation of the evidence that Indranath is alleged to have co-operated with Barindra in the publication of the Jugantar. There is nothing on the record to justify it. The Company mentioned in Ex. 1368 never came into existence and it was a complete misreading and misconception of the evidence. Mr. Chakravarti then went into a discussion of the evidence after which the Court rose for the day.

Page 417