The Alipore Bomb Trial

TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS 

     Mr. Norton after dealing at length with the various plans put in by the prosecution said he would deal with the lice evidence as a whole in this case, what they did and what the Sessions Judge found with regard to them. This was important to the Crown, because Counsel was going to rely on the evidence of shadowing witnesses. He maintained that the police evidence in this case was honest and trustworthy, and it would be unfair to them as well as to the Crown to abandon what he believed to be evidence on which one might safely place reliance. The were open to the class of attacks made upon them. With regard to the identification of Barindra Kumar Ghose and Sishir kumar Ghose in April, the record showed that their identification by the police was a mistake, but Mr. Beachcroft held that it was an honest mistake.

     Continuing Mr. Norton said that there was a general attack on the conduct of the police with regard to the documents as a whole. All that was said was that some exhibits were mixed up and there- fore their evidence ought to have been rejected.

     Continuing Hr. Norton said that there was no dishonesty on the part of the police. With regard to the 17 men, who were acquitted there was not a single instance, where the Sessions Judge remarked that he did not believe the police witnesses. Counsel would next deal with the remarks made by Mr. Das regarding the shadowing witnesses.

     The Chief Justice: Mr. Das said, if I am not misrepresenting him, that the police never knew anything at all about this affair until after the confession and then they constructed their evidence as to watching on the basis of the confession. There was some slight qualification to that, I think in one instance, but generally that was the argument.

     Mr. Norton: How came the police to raid 134 Harrison Road ? That must have been in of some knowledge of some sort. What about 15, Gopi Mohan Dutt’s Lane ? There was not a word about it in the confession. How come they to ask for s search warrant.

Page 297

     The Chief Justice: So far as the searches go, the confessions could have been no guide, because the searches precede confessions in order of time. I suppose what was suggested is this that there was an information on which the places were selected for the search but the substantial story was not learnt until the confessions were made. That was the theory.

     Mr. Norton : It is now suggested. It is a new argument. It comes to this that there was information which enabled us to know certain places. In the first lace that would account in some measures for the view that the informer gave the information. But the view that the case was afterwards falsely worked up in consequence of the information given by the confessions cannot be applied truthfully with regard to the Seal’s Lodge.

     With regard to the question that the police had no power to arrest, Counsel would refer their Lordships to Section 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under that section it was obvious that the police had the power.

     With regard to the question as to the admissibility of the confessions, . Norton proposed to argue on two grounds. That rested partly upon facts an partly upon the question of law. As to facts, Mr. Birley was acting under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the confessions were at once admissible under that section. The Crown had conclusively proved that before Mr. Thornhill there was no case. All that he was asked to do was to issue a search warrant. In fact, he did issue the warrant legally under Section 96 of the Code. What were the facts before Mr. Thornhill? They contained in the statement reduced to Writing by the complainant Puma Chandra Biswas, which showed that Mr. Thornhill was acting in the investigation of a case over which he had no jurisdiction. Thereafter on the 2^nd May all the raids were made and the occupants of each respective house was arrested. That was the state of when these persons were arrested on the 2^nd May. They were then taken to the Commissioner of Police who kept them in police custody.

     The Court then rose for the day.

Page 298