The Alipore Bomb Trial

THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

     Mr. Stokes continuing his argument on behalf of the Crown referred to the statement made by Sishir Kumar Ghose before the Sessions Judge.

     Mr. Das: I do not know whether my learned friend can refer to that statement before the Sessions Judge. It is neither signed by the Sessions Judge nor does there appear the usual certificate under Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

     Mr. Das: Not one of them is signed or certified except the statement of Arabinda as I End it from the records now.

Page 325

     Carnduff J: Do you say it is only signed in the case of Arabinda ?

     Mr. Das: Yes and in the case of Nirapada, Birendra and Susil even the name of the Sessions Judge on the top does not appear as also in the case of Indra Nath, but I do not appear for him.

     The Chief Justice: W hat we have to be satisfied is that the Judge must certify in his own hand that it was taken in his presence and hearing and that the record contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. Where there are initials we may say that there was an attempt to comply with the provisions of the section. Where you have got nothing at all can you say, it is merely irregular ? Is there not a complete failure to observe the provisions of the section ?

     Mr. Stokes: But he has taken it all down in his own hand-writing.

     The Chief Justice: Quite true. But how are we to know that the record contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. Therefore it cannot throw any light as to what happened after it was written.

     Mr. Stokes : We have got in this particular case the entire examination, both questions and answers, taken down in the Judge’s own hand-writing. The section says that the statement be recorded but does not say that it must be recorded in the Judge’s own writing. It is true that the Judge’s name only appears in the heading but at the foot of the statement you have the signature of the accused and it was taken in his presence. That really deprives the objection of any substance and brings it into the region of irregularity because you have the accused’s own signature at the foot of the statement. If this was in the hand-writing of some body else your Lordships would naturally be in the region of doubt.

     The Chief Justice: For my part I don’t know whether it was  written by the Judge or not.

     Mr. Norton : In many instances the statements were read over by the accused themselves and many of them asked that corrections should be made. I submit that some value is to be attached to the signatures of the accused persons on these confessions.

     Mr. Stokes: Paragraph 3 of section 3644 deals with the case to which your Lordship the Chief Justice refers. The omission of the Judge to put his signature arose from the fact that he took the extra precaution of giving the confessions to the accused to read.

     The Chief Justice : There is a case in 3 Calcutta Page 756.

     Mr. Das: There is a case in 12 Weekly Reporter page 44.

     The Chief Justice: That does not help. I am afraid, inferentially, the case in 3 Calcutta is against you, Mr. Stokes

Page 326

     Mr. Stokes then referred to and dealt with the other exhibits against Sishir which, the Crown stated, connected him with the garden.

     Mr. Stokes next went on to compare the different handwritings for the purpose of showing that a particular document was in the handwriting of Indu Bhusan Roy. Judging it by comparison, Mr. Stokes said, there could be no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the document in question was in the writing of Indu Bhusan.

     The Chief Justice : What is the standard of your comparison.

     Mr. Stokes : Signature is the only standard of comparison.

     Mr. Norton : There is another standard of comparison.

     The Chief Justice: We cannot throw away Mr. Stokes’ argument. Mr. Stoke’s argument is exceedingly well. Let Mr. Stokes finish first.

     Mr. Stokes then referred to several other exhibits and said that Sishir’s relation to Barin showed that he had full knowledge of the objects of the conspiracy. It was not necessary for the Crown to show that Sishir knew all the intentions of the conspirators——the assassination, the blowing up; etc. As long as Sishir had the knowledge of the general intention he was guilty.

     Counsel then said that the records of the Jamalpur case were admissible in this case. That judgment should be considered by their Lordships in this case apart from the question as to whether Sishir was guilty or innocent of the offence he was charged with or whether he was properly bound down or not. If he was found innocent then Counsel’s argument was all the more stronger, because he put that forward simply as evidence of motive. Counsel wanted to show what was the state of Sishir’s mind at the time of the conspiracy.

     Mr. Norton then with the permission of their Lordships dealt with the case of the two Sen brothers—Susil and Biren. Counsel said that he would begin with the case of the two and then he would divide the case up against each of them. The case for the prosecution was that sometime in January 1908 and certainly in February, 1909 Susil was in touch with the garden. The other brother Biren, was down in Calcutta up to the 23^rd March being in the National School. Both of them were cognizant of the garden, both were there and there they learnt at any rate some portions of the chemical formulae for the preparation of bombs. Then Biren went up to Sylhet. With regard to Susil the prosecution submitted that he was right down in Calcutta up to the date of the arrest, although he was not found in the garden on the day of the arrest. That was the general case against the two brothers. They were arrested on the 15^th May and sent to Calcutta on the

Page 327

18^th   May. In consequence of a warrant issued under the Arms and Explosives Act against Susil their house was searched.

     Continuing Mr. Norton said that at the time the search was conducted, Babu Koylash Chandra Sen, father of the two appellants, was present and the search list was signed by him. Counsel next went on reading the evidence of the search witnesses and had not concluded when the Court rose for the day.

Page 328