The Alipore Bomb Trial

Thirteenth Day's Proceedings

Mr. Das continuing his address said that when the Court rose on Saturday he was dealing with the documents relating to Ullaskar Dutt. He submitted if their Lordships rejected the confession, there was nothing in the documents which fixed the guilt on Ullaskar. The question then rose as to how far the shadowing witnesses fixed guilt on Ullaskar. As regards the shadowing witnesses what they found was that the evidence with reference to 15 Gopi Mohan Dutt’s Lane was the evidence of Bolai Ganguli, Satish Banerjea and Suresh Ghose and the incidents of which that evidence was made up were the incidents of the 23^rd April and the 26^th April.

     Counsel read the evidence of the various witnesses in connection with the evidence of the 23^rd April and 26^th April and submitted that evidence was unreliable and unsatisfactory and could not be accepted. That was the whole of the evidence against Ullaskar Dutt.

     After reading a portion of the Sessions Judge's judgment Counsel said that so far as Bibhuti’s confession was concerned he had pointed out to their Lordships at the time when he was dealing with the confessions generally that the whole of it was in answer to questions.

     With regard to the documents Counsel submitted that there was nothing in the documents which implicated Bibhuti in any way. Their Lordships would recollect that there were two Bibhutis in connection with this case. One was Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar and the other was Bibhuti Roy. From the evidence of Inspector Purna Chunder Lahiri their Lordships got it that Bibhuti was connected with Yugantar.

     Mr. Das then dealt with the watch witnesses and said that as regards the watch witnesses the Sessions Judge only referred to Bibhuti having been seen at 15, Gopi Mohan Dutt’s Lane. That resolved itself into the incident of that 23^rd April.

     Counsel read the evidence of the watch witnesses and said if their Lordships proceeded on the confession the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar stood on a different footing, but if their Lordships did not proceed on the confession then the evidence against him was not sufficient for a conviction.

     Mr. Das then dealt with the case of Indu Bhushan Roy and read that portion of the judgment referring to this accused.

    A point was raised as to how far their Lordships could take the confession of one accused as evidence against the other. That point, Counsel said, he would argue later when dealing with all the confessions.

Page 247

     Counsel then referred to that portion of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, where he deals with the case of Indu Bhusan, after which Mr. Das read the confession made by the accused. Counsel would not deal with these points as he had already dealt with them in his general observations.

     Three documents were concerned in this case, namely exhibits, 56, 57 and 58. They should be dealt with together. The Sessions Judge based his conclusion with reference to these documents from the evidence of handwriting. Exhibit 56 was a note book and in- side that book were found exhibits 57 and 58. The case for the prosecution was that these exhibits were in the pocket of a coat, which at the time of the search was claimed by Indu Bhusan Roy. Inspector Frizoni gave that evidence. Apart from the hand- writing that was the only evidence of Indu's connection. It was after arrest that the things were found out and the question was how far that could be taken in evidence. Counsel then showed two dates to their Lordships one was on the first page of the note book and the another on the fifth page. Counsel submitted that those two entries clearly appeared to be in the same handwriting and the handwriting is different from the handwritings in other pages in the body of the notebook. The character was entirely different. Further apart from the dates the different writings in the notebook are in the same handwritings.

     Mr. Das said that with regard to the confession of Upendra there was one point which he desired to draw their Lordship’s attention to, namely, that several portions of the confessions, as appeared, were not in answer to the questions put, but which, the case for the defence was, at least that was Mr. Das' instructions, were said in answer to questions put, but which questions were not recorded.

     Counsel said that according to the case for the prosecution Ullaskar used to teach explosives. Indra used to make experiments with Barin, Prafulla and Bibhuty. It did not appear that Upen had anything to do with that side.

     The Chief Justice: You say that he had nothing to do with that department.

     Mr. Das He said he was in charge of the education of the boys and this was a different department.

     The Chief Justice: Except that he had the general knowledge. He himself said that.

     Mr. Das : Yes, I am now dealing with the division of labour.

     Mr. Das then referred to exhibits. One of the exhibits was a letter purported to be written by Krishna Jiban to Upendra. This letter was taken from the post office after the arrest. Counsel

Page 248

did not know why it was referred to against Upendra except that Krishna Jiban was known to Upendra. lf so, so far as Upendra was concerned it did not show any conspiracy on his part but the reverse of it. Exhibit 774 was the monkey letter. It was found at Seal’s Lodge. The letter contains " the condition of the garden is very had. The monkeys are entering the garden." The case for the prosecution was that "monkeys" referred to police. Counsel submitted that at that time there was no suggestion of any watch being kept by the police. A corner of that letter was torn off. Who could have torn that corner ? Certainly the conspirators would not have done it in that way. The conspirators would have torn off the whole letter.

Page 249