The Alipore Bomb Trial

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT

This case comes up on a reference under section 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code with respect to five appellants- Krishna Jiban Sanyal, Sailendra Nath Bose, Birendra Chandra Sen, Susil Kumar Sen and Indra Nath Nundy. These persons together with fourteen others were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Alipore of offences under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code.

All the nineteen prisoners appealed, one died pending the appeal. As to thirteen the learned Judges who heard the appeal were agreed: as to the remaining five they differed. The Chief Justice held that the appeal should be allowed in the cases of the five persons whose names I have mentioned, while Mr. Justice Carnduff was of opinion that these persons should be convicted under section 121-A of the Indian Penal Code for conspiring to wage war on the King and to deprive him of the sovereignty of British India.

The question arises before me as to the existence of a conspiracy punishable under section 121-A of the I. P. Code. Both the learned Judges agree with the Sessions Judge on this point. And there is no doubt that the conspiracy was a particularly formidable one. Its objects and the methods of the conspirators appear in the confessions of the prisoners and in the documents which have been produced in this case.

The object of the conspiracy was to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India by force. To the attainment of this object the minds of the public generally were

Page 418

to be inflamed against the English. To this end the Jugantar newspaper was employed and calumnies and slander against the English were interwoven with appeals to the readers of the paper to unite to destroy the British rule. Young men were prepared for revolution by the teachings of the originators of this conspiracy. Arms and ammunition were collected. Bombs and high explosives were prepared for the purposes of murder.

The teaching bore fruit. On November 5, 1907, an effort was made to blow up the train in which the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal was travelling and before the 7^th of the following month a similar attempt, happily unsuccessful, had been made. On the 11^th April, 1908, an attempt was made on the lives of the Mayor of Chandranagore and his wife with a bomb which was thrown into the room where they were sitting together. This machine though powerful enough to have wrecked the room and killed all the persons in it fortunately failed to explode. But on the 20^th another bomb outrage was committed which was unfortunately more successful. A bomb said to be intended for Mr. Kingsford was thrown at a carriage containing Mrs. and Miss Kennedy; it exploded with fatal result to the two ladies.

Some time before the murder of these ladies information had reached the authorities which had induced them to set a watch on various persons and places in Calcutta. After the murder a consultation was held by the police officers which resulted in a search being made on 2^nd May at 32 Muraripoker a place which is referred to as the garden—l32, Harrison Road, 15, Gopi Mohun Dutt’s Lane and other places, and as a result of this search a large amount of arms, bombs, recipes and materials for making high explosives and seditious literature were discovered and a number of persons who were subsequently placed upon their trial were arrested. Amongst those arrested on May 2 was the appellant Sailendra who, together with Abinash was taken into custody at 48, Grey Street. The other four appellants were arrested later, namely, Krishna Jiban Sanyal on May 12 at Malda, Birendra Chandra Sen and Susil Kumar Sen on May 18^th at Sylhet and Indra Nath Nundy on June 23 at Calcutta.

Before dealing with the evidence relating to these five individuals separately, it becomes necessary for me to refer to that branch of the conspirators’ work which consisted in inflaming the minds of the people and creating a disaffected spirit by the publication of seditious literature, because the Crown rely on the connection of the appellants with the Jugantar newspaper and other seditious publications as one of the circumstances pointing to their connection with the conspiracy itself.

Page 419

The Jugantar was started on March 30, 1906 by Barindro Kumar Ghose, Abinash Bhattacharyya and Bhupendra Nath Dutt. It openly aimed at the destruction of British rule in India. To that end there was published on August 26, 1907, an article urging the formation of bands of young men, with the object of directing local thought and effort towards independence. On January 13, 1907, an article appeared headed "The truth about revolution." This urges a revolution by brute force and refers to the building up of public opinion. Then in the issue of February 3, 1907, there is a specific article on the "building up of public opinion" which, together with the collection of brute force, is said, to be necessary for the work of revolution. It points out the various means by which public opinion is to be built up, namely, by newspapers, by national songs and literature, by preaching, by secret meetings and associations. On March 12, 1907, appears an article on the "Collection of Funds” urging the necessity of collecting funds by force, stating that thefts or dacoities committed to that end are not a sin but a work of religious merit. On April 11, 1908, there is an article headed "Welcome unrest". Unrest, it says, must be created; its historical name is revolt. And on the same day is a paragraph headed "Liberty at Chandannagore" referring to the refusal of the Mayor to allow a political meeting. On the very day of this publication a bomb was thrown at the Mayor. Besides the particular passages to which I have referred there are constant references to war, bloodshed and death.

But the Jugantar was not the only seditious newspaper. The Sandhya although it does not seem to have been published by any one of the conspirators was occupied in endeavouring to excite disaffection by the grossest calumnies against the English.

After quoting passages from the "Sandhya," the "Mookti kon Puthe" and the "Bartaman Rana Niti" his Lordship said; I. To sum up the effects of the writings to which I have referred, .a revolution was to be brought about, and to that end disaffection and discontent were to be excited in the minds of heretofore contented and peaceful people. False and malicious slanders were to be circulated to inflame the minds of the people against the English. Money to defray the expenses of the agitation was to be obtained by robbery. Bombs and explosives were to be prepared, the youths of the country were to be trained in warlike exercises and every preparation made to effect the revolution by force of arms.

That being the state of things the questions I have to decide is whether the evidence upon the record justifies a finding that the five appellants or any of them, have been parties to an agreement to overthrow the Government and effect a revolution by force and

Page 420

violence. And in considering the evidence as to this it is important to bear in mind the distinction which exists between the cases of those whose minds have been poisoned by the pernicious literature to which I have referred, who have been imbued with a hatred towards the British—and those who have gone a step further and have become parties to an agreement to destroy that Government.

The Assessors in the Sessions Court were in favour of acquitting these five appellants, but the learned Judge was of opinion that their guilt was established.

His Lordship then proceeded to deal with the case of each appellant separately, and considered first the case of Krishna Jiban Sanyal who had been convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 121-A, I. P. Code and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. His Lordship did not think that there was evidence on the record which fairly warranted a conviction. He agreed therefore with the Chief Justice in holding that the conviction of the appellant should be set aside.

The next case considered was that of Sailedra Nath Bose who was convicted by the Sessions Judge under section 121-A, I. P. Code and sentenced to transportation for life. The evidence in his Lordship’s opinion justified the Judge in the conclusion to which he came that Sailendra was guilty and further `his Lordship’s , view was strengthened by Sailendra’s own conduct. His Lordship agreed therefore with Mr. Justice Carnduff and was of opinion that Sailendra should be convicted under Sec. 121-A. The Sessions Judge had convicted Birendra Chandra Sen under section 121-A, I. P. Code and sentenced him to transportation for life. Susil, the younger, had been convicted under section 121-A, I. P. Code and had been sentenced to transportation for ten years. As regards Birendra, his Lordship agreed in the view expressed by Mr. Justice Carnduff and held that Birendra Chandra Sen should be convicted under Section 121-A and was not prepared to dissent from the sentences that Mr. Justice Carnduff proposed to pass. With regard to Susil, his Lordship agreed with the Chief Justice in thinking that the conviction of Susil Kumar Sen was wrong and that he should be acquitted.

Lastly came the case of Indra Nath Nundy who was convicted by the Sessions Judge under Sections 121, 121-A and 122 I. P. Code and sentenced to transportation; for life. On appeal both the learned Judges were of opinion that the convictions under sections 121 and 122 could not stand but while the Chief Justice was in favour of reversing the conviction under Section 121-A and acquitting the prisoner, Mr. Justice Carnduff thought that the conviction under that section should be sustained but the sentence reduced to one of seven

Page 421

years’ transportation. In his Lordship’s opinion the circumstances were not sufficient to bring home connection with the conspiracy to Indra Nath Nundy and his Lordship agreed with the Chief Justice in thinking that his appeal should he allowed.

In conclusion his Lordship said : The result is that I agree with the Chief Justice in allowing the appeals and reversing the conviction in the cases of Krishna Jibau Sanyal, Susil Kumar Sen and Indra Nath Nundy. I agree with Mr. Justice Carnduff that the convictions of Sailendra Nath Bose and Birendra Chandra Sen under section 121-A, I. P. Code should be affirmed and I assent to the sentences which that learned Judge is prepared to pass. I direct, therefore, that Birendra Chandra Sen be transported for seven years and that Sailendra Nath Bose be rigorously imprisoned for a period of five years.

I should like to add one word in commendation of the police who appear to have carried out the task of tracing out this complicated and formidable conspiracy with great skill and industry and in my opinion deserve great credit at the hands of the public for the way in which they have carried out their work.

Page 422