Authored By : Rankin, H.G. Pearson, Sarat Kumar Ghose

Rankin, C.J.

1. In these four appeals, sight appellants are before us,and they wore tried, with two other accused persons who have been acquitted, bya Special Tribunal appointed under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act(Supplementary), 1925. The trial took place in November last and apart fromcertain connected charges to which I will refer as necessary the main chargeagainst all the appellants was a charge of conspiracy. The charge was that atvarious places mentioned they were parties to a conspiracy to make and possessexplosive substance, to collect arms and ammunition, and to kill Europeans andpolice officers; in other words, it was a charge of conspiracy which embracedoffences under the Explosive Substances Act, the Arms Act and the Indian PenalCode, Section 302. The time during which the conspiracy was alleged in thecharge to have subsisted was between December 1929 and October 1930.

2. I propose to begin by stating what, according to the casefor the Crown, is the direct and substantive evidence against the appellants.First of all, the evidence for the Grown is that, in June 1930, the accusedBhupal, acting with one Rajani, went to the witness Niladri and, after variousnegotiations, gave orders for the making of what we now know to be aluminiumbomb shells properly serrated so as to spread when the high explosive shouldtake effect. These orders were given calling the shells pipe pinions"and they were ordered on the footing that the articles were pipe pinionsrequired in connexion with char-kas. Niladris evidence is that 70 of thesebomb shells of a smaller size and 18 or 19 of a large size were deliveredbetween the end of June and the middle of July, some of the deliveries being toBhupal and some to Rajani. The second thing which the prosecution claims tohave established by direct evidence is that, on 6th September 1930, the accusedNarain who had been arrested on 25th August, and whose laboratory and house hadbeen searched on that day without any important consequences, took certainpolice officers to his house, No. 7 Kai-lash Bose Street and, there producedtwo test-tubes, certain bundles of glass tubes shaped in the form of the letterU, a copy of Cohens Inorganic Chemistry and certain other articles. Theprosecution evidence is that, out of the considerable number of U-tubes found,there were two which upon subsequent examination turned out to contain tracesor small particles of fulminate of mercury and small pieces of cotton treatedchemically so as to be in fact gun-cotton. This the prosecution claims to haveestablished by the direct evidence of the police, of the search witnesses, ofthe Inspector of Explosives and of the Chemical Examiners report. The thirditem is that on 10th September in the house at No. 8, Lal Madhab Mukherji Lanein the occupation of the accused Surendra Nath Dutt, the police on making araid there seized a suit case which contained bombs, gun-cotton, fuses, five38 revolver cartridges and five cartridges of the calibre 320 of Belgian makeand having certain marks. They also at that time and place seized plans ofvarious power stations in Calcutta. The fourth item is that on 10th Septemberat 12-30 p. m. the accused Rohini Kanta Adhikari was arrested as he wasentering No. 8, Lal Madhab Mukherji Lane, with a bundle wrapped up in a gamchaand, on his being taken to the thana and searched, the gamcha was found tocontain eight empty bomb sheila covered with some vegetable puisag so as toconceal them. The fifth item is that on that very day at 8-15 p.m. the accusedJyotish Chandra Bhowmick was arrested as he was entering this same house, No. 8Lal Madhab Mukherji Lane, and when he was taken to the thana a Belgiancartridge of the same make as the 320 cartridges found in the suit case wastaken from his person being tucked up in his kocha. The sixth item which theprosecution claims to have proved by direct evidence is that, on 14thSeptember, the accused Surendra, took the police to his house, No. 8 Lal MadhabMukherji Lane and pointed out to them one of several tin canisters under awooden shelf on the ground floor. Some of these canisters were empty, while theothers were full of scented oil, but one canister which was pointed out bySurendra to the police was found to contain four live bombs wrapped up inpaper. It may here be observed that at this time neither Sitangshu nor Brojo,the approvers, had come on the scene. Sitangshu was not arrested until 1stOctober and Brojo was not arrested till 24th October.

3. The first thing which has to be considered is whether thefacts which I have narrated have been established by the prosecution. Asregards the find of the U-tubes, the case for the defence is that XT-tubes inthemselves are not suspicious articles to be found in the house of a doctor whoconducts business at a laboratory; and a good deal turns upon the two tubeswhich are alleged to have been found with traces of fulminate of mercury andsmall pieces of gun-cotton. Mr. Chaudhury for the accused Narain has contendedbefore us that, as the search list contains a column for "remarks,"and as it is stated that each of the articles seized was spread out andexamined at the time, the fact that there is no note-about traces of fulminateof mercury or small pieces of cotton is a fact which ought to make usreasonably certain that no such traces appeared in any of the U-tubes that wereat that time found. I may here say that a number of U-tubes was contained inbundles-there was a bundle of 32, another of 31, in another there were 20-andit is said, largely upon the absence of any note of anything special in thesetwo tubes, that the proper inference is that the traces of fulminate of mercuryand gun cotton powder have really been "planted" by the police. Thereis, of course, no evidence of anything of the sort; but, in order to examineinto this question, which is of some importance, it is very necessary to considerthe conduct of the accused Narain at or about the time.

4. Narain had been arrested on 25th August. On 6th Septemberwhen he took the police to his house and pointed out these U-tubes and theother articles, he was clearly for one reason or another, as Mr. Chaudhury putsit, of a confessing mind. We know that on 6th September the police set a watchon No. 8 Lal Madhab Mukherji Lane and we know further that on the same dayNarain was produced before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. He was produced againbefore the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the 8th and, on that day, he wastaken to the house of an Honorary Presidency Magistrate Mr. A. T. Ghose, wherehe made a statement. That statement is a confession in the fullest sense of theword being a detailed and circumstantial narrative to the effect that he hadtaken part in a conspiracy to manufacture bombs and with the object alleged. Hegives a history to some extent of his political opinion and activities and saysthat his decision to take part in preparing explosives for political objectswas come to about November 1929. He tells a story as to how he startedpurchasing chemicals in February 1930 and how in April 1930 he met the accusedRasik Lal Das; and he goes on to say how in the middle of May and at the end ofMay he took part in the manufacture of high explosives with which bomb-shellsare prepared. He says that shells numbering two dozen were brought to hishouse, that he filled them with the assistance of Gobinda, that they werecarried to No. 7 Bhim Ghose Lane by the accused Ambica, that another instalmentwas filled at the place of the accused Adwaita and that in this way a dozenshells were prepared. He further says-and this is important-that about thefirst week of August 1930 he was given the address of No. 8 Lal Madhab MukerjiLane, that he went there with Amatol and ready filled U-tubes and that he foundthere one dozen empty aluminium shells which he filled, and so on. Now, theconfession goes on this way:

These properties which I am showing you now were produced byme to the police on 6th September 1930 at 7, Kailas Boss Street.

5. Then follows a numbered list of the properties referredto. No. (3) is this:

U-tubes three bundles produced by the accused. In one ofthese bundles, one tube showed trace of burnt fulminate of mercury and anothertube showed a cotton plug at the base of the U-tube.

6. Mr. Chaudhuri for Narain says that this means that theMagistrate inspecting these bundles of U-tubes was in this passage taking uponhimself not to record anything stated by the accused but to give his ownopinion or information that the particles in one tuba wore burnt fulmiuata ofmercury and he contends that the confession is not recorded verbatim, e. g.,"the accused says that in one of these bundles and so forth. Now, it isnecessary before considering this important point to take notice of thestatement of Narain on the occasion of his trial. On that occasion, Narainreputes the whole of his confession. He says that Inspector Moni Bose asked tomake a confession and promised make him a witness, that he did this two orthree days; that failing the accused was taken to an empty house behind thespecial branch office where the Inspector with some constables began to assaulthim and that the assault lasted from midday until evening. He says that theyhandcuffed him and then made him get up and down, that this ill treatment wenton until he nearly fainted and that he was given a few more kicks and a fewpinches. He then says that on that night and the next day he was kept withoutfood and, drink and was promised food and drink if he would go to his house andproduce test tubes and such chemicals as were bound to be found in a doctorshouse; and in that way he explains how it is that when he was taken to hishouse he there produced the articles described in the second search list Hedoes not dispute that he Produced them. He says that the assault of winch hespeaks was some two days before the 6th, that is to say, : about 4th September.He goes on further to say that after going back from his house he was given adrink, that he was told that he must make a statement before a Magistrate, thathe refused to make a statement before a Magistrate but that on the morning ofthe 8th he could not bear being starved any longer and agreed to go before aMagistrate. He says that he told the magistrate that he had been starving allthe day and the day before. He says that he dictated his statement from awritten document which had been prepared from the dictation of the Inspector.He further says that he was given two U-tubes with special marks, but he isquite sure that these two U-tubes were not captured at his house and that hetold the magistrate that the police had assaulted him.

7. We have as against Narain to consider whether upon thisevidence, and taking into consideration this explanation we are satisfied thathe did go to his house produced these bundles of U-tubes as being materialsconcerned in the conspiracy which he was confessing and, in particular, thatthe two tubes with the traces to which I have referred were brought out by himfrom his house and were confessed to before the magistrate. The Magistrate hasbeen called. The confession itself purports to show that at 12.30 p.m. theMagistrate after asking whether the accused was prepared to confess voluntarilytold him that he was not bound to confess and gave him three hours time tothink the matter over be-lore he recorded the statement He did not begin torecord the statement till 3-30 p.m. The confession further purports to showthat the accused endorsed it. It is recorded by the accused "I read overmy whole statement which is correct; and there is also this statement over thesignature of the magistrate

read over the whole statement to the accused who admitted itto be correct;

and, in the Magistrates reasons recorded for believing thatthe confession was voluntary, he states this:

The accused made the statement in English and I recorded itverbatim. The accused read over each page himself and signed it. I also readover to him each page of the confession which he admitted to be correct. Lastof all, the accused read over the whole statement himself and I also read overthe whole statement which he admitted to be correct.

8. Now, the Magistrate in his evidence has explained thatthe accused himself wrote on it that it was correct after reading it over andin cross-examination he says that the accused was in his private chamber fromnoon to 3-30 p.m.

He says:

I was also there, but no one else. I was reading a book andhad no talk with him except to give him some refreshments he asked for.

9. He ascertained from the accused that he had been kept inthe Bhowanipur thana since the time of his arrest. He says that he asked theaccused to open his coat to see if he had any marks of injury and the accusedsaid that he had none and so he did not open his coat. The Magistrate statesthat Inspector Bose gave him a cover containing some U-tubes and other articlesbut did not tell him what the accused was going to confess. He then kept thecover containing the U-tubes on the table and did not examine the contents,except when the accused brought them out. Now, it has to be noticed that notonly was this accused a doctor who must have known perfectly well that anysigns of ill-treatment would be investigated on a complaint when he was takento the Bhowanipore thana and that he would have the right himself to go for thepurpose of complaint before a Magistrate, but we find that he was in factbrought before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the 6th, on the 8th and onthe 9th. In addition to that, it has to be observed that when on the 8thSeptember this accused was making a confession the police could not know thatwhen house No. 8, Lal Madhub Mukherji Lane, was raided on the 10th a suit casewith bombs in it would be discovered; still less could they know that on the14th there would be a canister of live bombs on the ground floor of that house.We have to consider on this evidence consisting entirely of direct evidence thestatement and conduct of this accused whether we are satisfied that these twotest tubes with traces of fulminate of mercury and gun-cotton powder were infact obtained from his house on the 6th, whether he produced all the test tubesas being articles with which he had been concerned in making explosives andwhether the confession which he made to the Magistrate on the 6th is to beregarded as a confession obtained without intimidation. In my judgment therecan be no doubt on these facts that the Crown have made good their case againstthis accused. There is no question here of want of corroboration, no questionhere of lack of direct and specific evidence implicating the accused himself.The accused is a man of about 28 years of age, an educated man and not a manwho would be in the least likely to be intimidated into making a confession.His story as to the ill-treatment, his story that because he was told toproduce such articles as would be in a doctors house he produced these testtubas, his story that confession is an imaginative thing produced byill-treatment, all that must be negatived. I have no doubt at all withoutconsidering the evidence of either of the approvers that the conviction ofNarain must be sustained both upon the conspiracy charge and also upon thesubstantive charge under Section 4 (b), Explosive Substances Act.

10. The next matter to which I shall refer is the case as itstands against the accused Bhupal. He, too, is a doctor. As against him, thereis the evidence of the man to whom he went in the coffee shop to makearrangements for getting these bomb-shells made. The witness is P. W. 3,Niladri, who says that Bhupal used to live behind the Kalighat tram depot. Hesays that in the end of May:

Bhupal brought an iron cask which I now know to be a shellwhich he described as pipe-pinion,

that Bhupal asked if the witness could make it, that heremoved an iron cap from the pinion and said that the pinion to be made shouldbe of a little smaller size and should have 10 baths instead of 8, that he cameto the workshop and showed an wooden pattern and gave verbal orders to preparealuminium pinions and also gave the witness Rs. 50 in advance, that the woodenpattern had no circles, but he gave instructions that the pinion should havefour circles and also gave instruction to prepare caps with screw thread andmake a hole at the bottom. A written order was insisted upon and this orderdated 22nd June was signed by Rajani. The witness describes how he went to askpeople, one Bhabani, one Kalicharan, and got these aluminium pinions made. Theinstructions were to make circles as was shown in one of the shells produced.Now, here we have to consider the statement of Bhupal at the trial. He does notdispute that he gave an order to Niladri for these things. His sole contentionis that he did so innocently and that Rajani had come to him and got him to dothis placing of the order for a commission telling him that these bomb-shellswere pipe pinions for charka. He says:

At his request and after his design, I made over an objecthe described as a pipe pinion used according to him, for a spinning machine toNiladri Babu whom I knew as the owner of a mechanical workshop. I had noknowledge that such articles could be used in the preparation of bombs.

11. We are therefore asked to believe that some one who wasminded to produce bombs and minded to have the shells so serrated as to get themaximum destructive effect from the high explosives entrusted the giving of theorder to some one who was entirely innocent of any idea that the shells were,to be bombshells at all. If there were no evidence save this direct objectiveevidence, the defence of Bhupal would have been of very small substance; but,as against him, we have to take account of the fact that on 10th September theman caught entering No. 8, Lal Madhub Mukherji Lane, with a gamcha containingeight empty shells of this very kind was the man Rohini whom we know to havebean at one time in the employ of Bhupal. Bhupal says that he had dismissedRohini for dishonesty; but save his word there is no evidence of that. Rohiniin his confession tells an elaborate and circumstantial story as to how beingout of work he went to Bhupal and was told to live about where he could not betraced, in parks and other places, and come back from time to time,; how theshells were handed over to him surreptitiously covered with some vegetable onthe top of them, and how he was told to take them to No. 8, Lal Madhub MukherjiLane. There is in addition the evidence of Sitangshu who says that on oneoccasion he took some money to Bhupals house from Narain. I lay no stress uponthe evidence of Sitangshu on that point; but it does appear to ma that, aparteven from the confession of Rohini, Bhupals defence cannot be entertained fora moment. I am also satisfied that that confession of Bohini is in broadoutline true and, in my judgment, Bhupal must be convicted of the charge ofconspiracy.

12. As regards Rohini, and indeed as regards Surendra, onthe evidence in this case and the confession of each, it is difficult todiscover that there is any room for a reasonable doubt as to their complicity.Not only was a suit case found in Surendras house on 10th September, but wehave the evidence as to how he himself took the police to his house on the 11thand pointed out a canister containing these live bombs inserted among otherharmless things. Surendra made his confession before Mr. A. T. Ghose on 15thSeptember, the very next day, implicating himself to the fullest extent in theconspiracy and showing that he knew all about it. Rohinis confession was on23rd September. He, like Surendra, was really caught red-handed and it is not avalid criticism to say that, according to Rohinis confession, he was notadmitting that he knew that the articles he was carrying were articles whichwere illegal for him to possess. It is quite plain that the confession is aconfession in the fullest sense of the word. It speaks of his being told of thenecessity of patting some vegetables over the bundle in. order to avoidsuspicion. It is idle, in the case either of Rohini or of Surendra, in view ofthe direct evidence against them and in view of their confessions, to thinkthat there is any reasonable doubt as to their complicity in the crime. BothRohini and Surendra must be convicted of the conspiracy charge and also theyhave no defence to the substantive charge under Section 4 (b), .ExplosiveSubstances Act.

13. So far it will be observed that the convictions dependin no way, in my judgment, upon the evidence of either of the approvers andthey depend in no way upon making an exception to the principle that theevidence of an accomplice is not to be believed unless it is corroborated byindependent evidence implicating the individual accused. When we come to theothers of the accused however it is important to take a careful estimate ofthe value attributable to the evidence of the approvers and the evidence of theconfessing co-accused. The learned Commissioners in their judgment at p. 132 ofthe printed paper book say this:

This is not a case of a single specific crime committed in aspecific place at a specific time in which in the absence of independentevidence as to his partners active share an accomplice could justifiably bedisbelieved. This is a case of a conspiracy extending over some months by itsnature carried on in secret, and in such a case it is impossible to demandindependent corroboration of every act ascribed to the conspirators. It is ourfirm conviction that the approvers are speaking the truth with regard to whatthey know. We are obliged to review the cumulative result of the evidence as awhole and the confessions of the accomplices amongst it, and we can find noreason for rejecting the story they tell as false. Even therefore if theevidence against an individual accused might rest only on the evidence of theaccomplices and a retracted confession, if it is in itself sufficientlyconvincing to satisfy us that it is beyond the possibility of doubt true, we haveacted on such evidence.

14. I do not misinterpret what the Commissioners mean tosay; but I must refuse to follow the principle which they there lay down. Inthe case to which we were referred, namely, the case of The King v. .Baskerville [1916] 2 K.B. 658 the traditional English practice on the questionof corroboration of approvers and accomplices has been very carefully laiddown. When the Indian legislature passed the Evidence Act, it certainlyreviewed the English cases and an Indian Court is entitled to take its law fromthe Evidence Act itself. Now, what the Evidence Act says by Section 30 aboutthe confession of a co-accused is that the Court may take it intoconsideration. Certainly, it may. But it is another thing altogether to laydown that it is a reasonable thing to convict a man upon the confession of aco-accused without independent evidence implicating him. Section 133 says thata conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroboratedtestimony of an accomplice. That undoubtedly is the law. We are not here merelyto record a conviction that is not illegal. We have to be satisfied that theconviction is properly based. Section 144 puts as one of the things that theCourt may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he iscorroborated in material particulars: and in a later portion of the section,certain qualifications are laid down which show that the legislature when itsays may presume" means what it says and does not mean "shallpresume." Nevertheless, the broad principle upon which the Englishpractice has always proceeded is as plain and necessary as it ever wascorroboration ought to consist of some circumstance that affects the identityof the parson accused. As an English case puts it, a man who has been guilty ofa crime himself will always be able to relate the facts of the case and, if theconfirmation be only of the truth of that history without identifying theperson, that is no corroboration at all. We have always to be careful lest thenames of the individual accused are introduced into the texture of a story theoutline of which is true enough.

15. It is not a question of asking for corroboration ofevery act ascribed to the conspirator. No one has ever demanded that.Corroboration need not be sufficient by itself to prove the guilt of the man.It is sufficient if in some circumstance there is independent implication. Icannot think that it is correct reasoning to say that because the chargebrought is a charge which it is difficult to prove therefore the Court may bejustified in not insisting upon so high a degree of proof. It does not matterhow difficult the charge may be to prove it must be proved, if there is to be aconviction. We have, I think, to look carefully at the evidence to see if thereis independent evidence implicating each one of these other accused which wouldenable us to rely upon the general truth either of the approvers evidence orof the confessions of the co-accused which seem to be in outline true. I wouldhere say that, as a matter of fact, I am much more impressed with the truth ofNarains confession than with the story as told by either of the approvers.Apart altogether from the fact that he was corroborated by what was found atNo. 8 Lal Madhub Mukherji Lane, Narains confession reads to me like aconfession which an educated man of his age might very well have made when hisguilt was discovered. I notice for example, that after implicating some of theyounger men he stated that these people acted under pressure and influence fromhim. But even so in dealing with these other accused, notwithstanding that Ihave a considerable degree of belief in the truth of what Narain says, I cannotin the case of those accused dispense with the reasonable caution which requiresindependent corroboration. As regards Ambica the evidence against him is theevidence of the two approvers and the confession of Narain. Narain says that hetook part in the filling of shells which were taken to 7, Bhim Ghose Lane. Inanother case, the shells were taken from Narains house to the same place byAmbica. Sitangshus evidence amounts to evidence of a guilty knowledge byreport or conversation, a kind of evidence which from the mouth of an approvercannot be given much weight. But the main element alleged against Ambica isthis : Brojo says that Narain asked Ambica, to prepare maps of the electricpower houses and certain maps of the power houses were discovered at No. 8, LalMadhab Mukherji Lane, on 10th September.

16. That is the only matter which can well be suggested tobe independent corroboration of the evidence of Sitanghsu and Brojo and thestatement of Narain. Is it independent corroboration such as this Court shouldact upon Mr. S.K. Sen has very properly pointed out to us that upon theevidence we cannot assume that Ambica is a man who had any connexion with No. 8Lal Madhub Mukherji Lane any more than he had with the Saraswati Press or withthe mess connected with that. If the presence of these maps is to be regardedas independent corroboration against Ambica, it is very necessary that itshould be properly proved that these maps were in his handwriting. Brojo saysthat they are in his handwriting but the prosecution produces no evidencecorroborating Brojo in this respect. There was no difficulty whatsoever in thisparticular case in getting evidence of his handwriting and in the absence ofproper evidence of his handwriting, certainly it is not for this Court tospeculate on the basis of a comparison between the counterfoils which wereproduced and the handwriting in these maps. The result therefore is that upon aproper analysis of the evidence in this case against Ambica, we have the twoapprovers and an accomplice implicating him. It is well settled practice thattwo or three approvers are the same as one in the absence of independentcorroboration implicating an accused and, although the question cannot be putas a rule of law because it is in England a rule of caution to the jury, I amnot prepared in the case of Ambica to depart one jot or title from theprinciple which it is the practice of this Court to follow. I am not preparedto sustain Ambicas conviction on the mere evidence of the approvers backed byNarains confession. In my judgment, this accused should be acquitted.

17. As regards Adwaita, I need hardly say much because Mr.Banerji who very fairly conducted this appeal on behalf of the Crown hasadmitted that the case against Adwaita is very weak. As a matter of fact, itdepends entirely upon a document found in his house which appears to containthe means of identification of different officers of police. It is an extremelysuspicious document and it is difficult to see that it is capable of anentirely innocent construction. But we have to see whether the find of thisdocument is independent evidence of this particular conspiracy - conspiracy tomanufacture explosive substances to kill Europeans and officers of police andconspiracy which is limited in time between December 1929 and October 1930. Themere fact that there is no way of putting a data to this document renders it inmy judgment impossible to rely upon it as independent corroboration. Thereagain in spite of the fact that a good deal of value might be attached againstthis accused to the confession of Narain, it appears to me that the caseagainst this accused Adwaita fails and that he should be acquitted altogether.

18. The next accused is Jyotish Bhowmick. He is a studentaged about 23 who is said to have worked in the Saraswati Press and to havelived in a mess which was occupied by the proprietors of this institution. Hewas arrested in the evening of 10th September while entering No. 8, Lal MadhubMukherji Lane and when taken to the thana a single Belgian cartridge. 320 wasfound with him. Mr. Santosh Kumar Basil has argued before us that this is avery small article, that it was probably planted by the police, that theevidence as to its discovery is not satisfactory and that the entries in thecrime sheet where the marks are put down appear to have been corrected at leastthere was some difficulty in copying them out. I have carefully attended tothese arguments, but I am not convinced for a moment by any one of them. It isreasonably plain that this man did have one of these Belgian cartridges on hisperson at the time he was entering this house. That in itself, means that theconviction under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, must stand. But the question iswhether he ought to be convicted of the charge of conspiracy. The man is shownto have possessed one cartridge carefully hidden. It may be said that onecartridge would be of very little use of itself. I am not at all certain aboutthat. One cartridge may be of very great use for certain purposes- specially asin this case we are dealing with ammunition of a mark or calibre that is notgenerally procurable in the shops. The trunk which contained Belgian cartidgesalso contained bombs, and the question is whether., upon the evidence as awhole, the presence of this cartridge is enough to enable us to say thatJyotish Bhowmick was not merely being used by the conspirators to collect smallarms and ammunition, but was also one of the conspirators sharing in theobjects set forth in the charge.

19. The case to that extant is somewhat on the borderline.This man was seen on 6th September hanging about as though he had just come outof No. 8, Lal Madhub Mukherji Lane. He was also seen and traced to theSaraswati Press and when we come to Surendras confession, we find thatSurendra says that. Jyotish was the man who left the suit case at No. 8 on the8th. Surendra however does not really identify Jyotish. He merely says that theman who left it was, he was told by an officer of the special Branch, the manJyotish. We cannot therefore regard Surandras confession as implicatingJyotish at all.

20. In these circumstances Mr. Basu for this accused saysthat if Jyotish had really bean one of the conspirators he would have known ofthe raid which had taken place in the morning at No. 8 and the fact that he didnot know that looks very much as if he was not one of them. There may be someweight in that argument. On the other hand if a raid is made it very oftendislocates the plan of the persons who are connected with the place, that israided. A consideration which has weighed very much with me is that thoughthere are two approvers in this case Jyotish Bhowmick: is not implicated byeither of them, and in view of that fact, I am not prepared on the strengthmerely of the finding of the cartridge to hold that he has been. shown to be aparticipant in the conspiracy charge. He will therefore be acquitted of thecharge of conspiracy and of all the charges save the charge under the Arms Act.He has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment on that charge whichmay stand.

21. Rasik Lal Das is the next accused and in his case Inotice that he is of the age of 30 and a man engaged in business. Theconfession of Narain and the evidence of the approvers implicate Rasik Lal Dasvery heavily and in his case one cannot help suspecting that he is veryprobably one of the people who were really at the bottom of the conspiracy withwhich we are concerned. I cannot say that the evidence of Sitangshu-and Brojois given in circumstances such that it is bound to be absolutely independent ofthe statements made in the, confession of Narain and in Rasiks case-as in theother cases I am not prepared to forgo the requirement of independentcorroboration. The only corroboration that can be put forward in his case-isthat Rasik lived in another house altogether but is shown to have been in thehabit of staying for certain purposes and for a certain time at the house No.7/1, Bhim Ghose Lane. It is to that house that the bombs are said to have beensent. According to the evidence of the approvers and Narain, Rasik is the waswho arranged for the filling and the disposal of the bombs and getting them tothis address No. 7/1, Bhim Ghose Lane. What evidence is there implicating Rasikby way of corroboration The only evidence is that when premises No. 7/1, BhimGhose Lane, was searched on 16th September certain articles of clothing werethere found which showed that Rasik had been at one time or another in thehabit of staying at that place. Of course, if there had been any independentevidence of bombs or small arms or ammunition being found at that place, thematter would have been altogether different, but that any bombs were ever takento that place is an averment for which we have to depend entirely upon theevidence of the approvers and the confessions of Narain. Is it then independentevidence implicating this accused Rasik that the approvers said that the bombswere sent to him at that address and it turns out, as a matter of fact, that hedid sometimes use that address. In my opinion that is not what is meant byindependent evidence implicating the accused. Assuming that it was known to theapprovers of Narain that this man was in the habit of using this address, theyhad only to introduce his name coupled with that circumstance and the caseagainst him would be completed. In my judgment in this case also, it must befound that the prosecution evidence is not; sufficient and this accused must beacquitted.

22. It remains only to deal with the question of sentenceupon the accused whose convictions in my opinion should be upheld. The specialtribunal has awarded sentence by splitting up the charge of conspiracy intothree convictions. That as is admitted on behalf of the Crown is wrong, and Ipropose to deal with the convicted accused on the footing that they are guiltyof conspiracy to commit an offence under the Explosive Substances Act. Bhupalwas not charged with the substantive offence under this Act, but only withconspiracy. Narain as we have seen must be convicted both of conspiracy and thesubstantive offence. The same is true as regards Rohini and Surendra. Now it isquite clear, and I do not propose to enlarge upon, it that persons who areengaged in manufacturing bombs of the type which have bean produced in thiscase are engaged in taking steps for indiscriminate murder, murder inconditions under which it is almost impossible to foresee that the effect ofthe acts done can be limited by the persons who are doing the same. A graveroffence against society than to manufacture such articles as these with theintention to use them against officers of police and other persons, it is nodoubt difficult to imagine. Bhupal and Narain are educated men and not veryyoung as they are nearer 30 than 20. They have been prostituting their educationand knowledge of chemistry which was acquired for purpose of the medicalprofession by utilizing it to produce the means of indiscriminateassassination. It is quite dear that they must be sentenced to a very heavypunishment indeed. I do not however feel it necessary, because 20 yearstransportation is the maximum, to impose that sentence. In the cases of Narainand Bhupal, I think that the sentence may be somewhat reduced. In those cases,the sentence of the Court will be that each be transported for 15 years. Thiswill be on the conspiracy count-no separate sentence being imposed on thesubstantive charge on Narain.

23. Surendra appears to be a person of somewhat loweradvantages and the sentence given to him may be reduced to 12 years transportation.Rohini I regard, as his learned advocate invited us to do, as a person probablyout of work engaged by his old master to take a small part-though a dangerouspart-in the conspiracy. He knew perfectly well that these were bomb-shells andI think that we are going to the utmost limit of leniency if we say that in hiscase a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment will be sufficient. In thecase of Jyotish Chandra Bhowmick, the sentence of two years rigorousimprisonment passed under the Arms Act will be sustained.

24. The sentences on Surendra and on Rohini are given on theconspiracy charge. There will be no separate sentence on the substantive chargeunder the Explosive Substances Act, and no separate sentence on Surendra underthe Arms Act.

H.G. Pearson, J.

25. I agree.

Sarat Kumar Ghose, J.

26. I agree.

.

Ambica Charan Roy and Ors.vs. Emperor (27.07.1931 - CALHC)