The Alipore Bomb Trial

TWELFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Das continuing his address dealt with the charge under section 121A of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that a conspiracy meant a particular intent and combination or in other words an intent and agreement between the different persons charged. His authority for that contention was to be found in Roscoe’s Book on Criminal Law, 12th edition, page 367.

     After reading an extract from the book in question Mr. Das said the first question was this : Unless the prosecution could prove that all the persons charged were parties to that agreement the offence was not made out. The essence of the offence was the object with which the person charged agreed and the persons with whom he agreed. That was the particular charge brought in this case. A certain number of persons were necessary, but the offence charged in this case and the offence with which their Lordships were now dealing was that certain persons entered into an agreement to carry out a particular object. Unless the prosecution could prove that intoto the charge fell through.

     The Chief Justice If one is acquitted, the others must also be acquitted ?

     Mr. Das : Yes. would refer your Lordships to the decision of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in the case of Queen vs. Manning.

     The Chief Justice: That is the case in which the Lord Chief Justice held there could not be a conspiracy of one.

     Counsel then went on to say that there was a difference between the pursuance of a particular object and the fact that there must be an agreement to carry that out. If the case for the prosecution- as stated in the form of indictment—was that Eve persons did enter into a particular agreement, the question was whether that was an offence. If it was, then all five must be guilty. A further question was that if guilty, were they guilty of an offence under section 121A ? His answer was it was not true that these live persons entered into that agreement.

     Counsel next said he really could not understand the distinction between the case of Queen vs. O'Connell and this case. In a case of conspiracy the conduct or statement of each one was evidence against the others. The evidence in a case of conspiracy was made u of whatever was said and done by each one of the persons charged? Therefore the mind of the Jury or Court must necessarily be influenced by the whole of that evidence. That was allowed to be done simply because the essence of the crime charged was an agreement between these different persons.

     Counsel then went on to say that the order of the Government being against some of these persons at one time and against others

Page 245

from time to time, there was nothing to show an order of Government for the particular offence charged under section 121A. He had already argued that point fully. The times were different and the names of the persons were different.

     The Chief Justice : There is nothing to show the conspiracy is the same.

     Mr. Das: There is nothing to show it is the same conspiracy covered by the order.

     Mr. Das continuing said :—The particular overt acts did not amount to one offence under section 121. If the particular overt acts did not amount to the of waging war and if the object of the agreement was to he ascertained by what was done in pursuance of the agreement — according to the case for the prosecution- his submission would he that the charge of conspiring would fall upon that. In this connection I would ask your Lordships to remember Barindra's confession as to the overt acts, namely, that the overt acts were not intended to serve independence. If that was so assuming these facts to be true — how far was this an offence under section 121A ?

     Mr. Das then went on to deal with the offence under section 122 and said that also rested on the confession of Barindra as regards the collection of arms. He asked their Lordships to consider this. Barindra in his confession said : "We were always thinking of a far off revolution and wished to he ready for it so we were collecting weapons in small quantities. Altogether I have collected eleven revolvers, four rifles and one gun.”

     Counsel said the question was what was meant by the use of the word "we " It might have been that what Barindra intended to say was that "we" was used in the same way as the word was used generally, and that people were thinking of a far-off revolution.

     The Chief Justice: Does "we" refer to these persons he names ?

     Mr. Das: Is that clear from the confession? The question is not perfectly clear on the confession. It may very well have been that Barindra talked loosely and that "we" simply means (II,).

     Mr. Das next referred to the question of intention and cited a case reported in 25 Bombay, page 90.

     Counsel next dealt with the confession as it stood.

     Mr. Das then took up the case against Ullaskar Dutt. He referred to the exhibits found in the garden which, the prosecution alleged, tended to incriminate Ullaskar.

     Counsel commented on these documents and had not concluded when the Court rose for the day.

Page 246