BENARES CONSPIRACY CASE – I

BENARAS CONSIPIRACY CASE — I

JUDGEMENT OF THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

Demi-offical letter from the Hon’ble Mr. R. Burn, Chief Secretary

to the United Provinces, to the Hon’ble Mr. H. Wheeler, C.S.I.,
C.I.E., Secretary to the Government of India, Home Department,
Sachindra Nath Sanyal dated Camp Bareilly, the 29th February 1916.
I am desired to forward, for the information of the Government
of India, two copies of the Judgment of the Special Tribunal in
the Benares conspiracy case.

JUDGEMENT

PART 1
INTRODUCTORY
Jatinder Nath Sanyal

In the present trial under the Defence of India Act fifteen accused
are before the court charged under sections 121, 121A, 122 and 131 of
the Indian Penal Code, and two of them, accused nos. 4 and 8, the ex-
sepoys Dharam Singh and Jadu Nath Singh, are also charged under sec.
123, I.P.C. We have not thought it necessary to frame a charge under
section 124A, because the objects of the conspiracy went far beyond
merely exciting hatred and disaffection. They aimed at nothing less than
the subversion of the Government by armed force, and the literature
which they were engaged in propagating (Swadhin Bharat and Liberty
leaflets) was frankly revolutionary in character and openly advocated
murder and rebellion. The orders of Government constituting the Special
Rao Gopal Singh
Tribunal and sanctioning the prosecution of the accused, and the
Kharwa – Rajasthan complaints filed in accordance with that sanction by the Superintendent
356 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 357
of Police, Benares, are on the record. Of the twenty-four persons in
respect of whom a prosecution was sanctioned fifteen were originally
before the court and the other nine were shown as absconding. As against
accused no, 6, Rao Gopal Singh of Kharwa, the prosecution was
subsequently withdrawn by Government and he was discharged, (Details
in the Postscript, at the end — Ed.) but as in the meantime accused no.
18, Nagendra Nath Datta alias Girja Babu, had been arrested and brought
before the court the number of accused to be tried still remained fifteen.
In referring to the accused throughout the proceedings we have preferred
for the sake of convenience to adhere to the original numbering as shown
on the title page of the case. In regard to seven of the eight remaining
accused evidence was placed before us at the outset of the trial to prove
the fact that they were absconding and an order was passed under sec.
512, C. P. C., rendering the evidence subsequently recorded available
against them under that section in the event of their arrest. In regard to
accused no. 17, Ganeshdan Chandar Rai, no proceeding under sec. 512
was recorded, as the prosecution was not at that time, prepared with
evidence to prove that search had been made for him.
The only point of law, which has been seriously pressed before us,
is as to the effect of sec. 10 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Chatterji for the
defence has contended that sec. 10’ in no way modifies the ordinary rule
against hearsay and that where, for instance, the approver Bibhuti tells
us of details which he learnt from the accused Sachindra of the distribution
of seditious leaflets by Nalini and other accused there is no evidence
whatever that the accused referred to did the acts which are attributed to
them. His contention is that under the definition of direct evidence given
in sec. 60 the only evidence admissible to prove that certain acts were
done by members of the conspiracy is that of persons who saw them do
those acts, and that there is nothing to warrant sec. 10 being construed as
an exception to this rule. He admits that he can produce no authority in
support of his contention, and it seems to us that the answer to it is to be
found in the language of sec. 10 itself. Sec. 10 lays down categorically
that when once it is established that two or more persons have entered
into a conspiracy, anything said by any one of them in reference to their
common intention is a relevant fact not only against the person making
the statement but against any one of the conspirators to whom the statement
relates, not only for showing the existence of the conspiracy but also for
showing that the person referred to was a party to it, Take for example
358 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Bibhuti’s evidence that Sachindra described to him in detail how Nalini
and others’ distributed leaflets at the Central Hindu College and elsewhere
(p.3, line 35). If this statement is not relevant as evidence that Nalini
distributed leaflets as alleged it is difficult to see in what sense it can be
evidence to prove his connection with the conspiracy. Yet sec. 10
distinctly lays down that such a statement is relevant for the purpose of
proving Nalini’s connection with the conspiracy. What its evidential value
might be is another matter, and we may say at once that the only use we
have made of second-hand evidence of this kind is to corroborate more
direct evidence of the same matter.
The objection to the validity of the rules made by the Local
Government, and the contention that the statement of one approver could
under no circumstances be used to corroborate that of another, which
appear to have been so strongly pressed in the Lahore Conspiracy Case,
have not been raised before us. With regard to the latter question our
position, which has been accepted by both prosecution and defence, has
been practically that set out in the second proviso to illustration (b) of
sec. 114 of the Evidence Act. Where the statements of two approvers
were recorded at difference places and under circumstances which show
that they were made independently of each other, it is merely common
sense to say that the fact of their being in substantial agreement as to a
number of details which are common to both must necessarily greatly
strengthen the court’s belief in their truth. Where on the other hand they
are shown not to have been made independently or where there is reasonable
ground for thinking that one approver may have been coached as to the
statement made by the other, the inference that might otherwise be derived
from their agreement naturally disappears.
Keeping before our minds the fact that it is necessary to be especially
cautious in dealing with this class of evidence we have examined the
statements of the approvers —
(a) from the point of view of their intrinsic credibility,
(b) in their relation to each other, and
(c) in the light of the large amount of independent evidence
available,
in order to see whether the approvers have in fact made that full and true
disclosure, which was a condition of the pardon granted to them . Where
we find that they have done so we are entitled to make use of their
evidence, provided that we are satisfied of its truth, even on points on
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 359
which corroboration is wanting.
The present trial in spite of its length, we have examined some 200
witnesses and the printed record of evidence extends to 390 pages-differs
from the previous conspiracy trials at Delhi and Lahore with which it is
connected, in that the evidence before us covers no instance of any actual
deed of violence, whether in the form of murder, dacoity, or bomb-
throwing. The activities of the Benares branch of the conspiracy were
confined to —
(1) distribution of seditious literature;
(2) tampering with the fidelity of the troops;
(3) Acting as a depot for the supply of bombs and ammunition
from Bengal and elsewhere to Meerut, Delhi, and the Punjab.
The conspiracies at Lahore, Delhi and Benares were all parts of
one big movement, but the centre of the movement was in the Punjab
where there was very different material to deal with form the Bengali
striplings who form the bulk of the accused before us. The discovery at
Meerut of ten loaded bombs, which undoubtedly came from Benares, is
sufficient to show to what deadly results the movement even here was
capable of leading, but as no act of violence had in fact been committed
when the police were able to effect the arrest of the leading accused the
Crown has not pressed for a conviction under sec. 121, the only one out
of the offences charged against the accused which is punishable with
death. Sec. 121 is one of the few offences for which a minimum penalty
is prescribed. A court convicting under that section must, if it does not
award the death penalty, pass sentence of transportation for life plus
forfeiture of property, a punishment which would obviously be utterly
inappropriate in the case of most of the accused before us. The decision
of the Crown not to press this charge even if technically the evidence
might be sufficient to constitute abetment of waging war leaves us free
to deal with the case under sec. 121A, which allows of a complete range
of punishments from transportation for life downwards. We therefore
propose dealing with those accused, whose guilt we find combined where
necessary with sec 122 or sec. 131 and allowing the other charges to
drop under sec. 240, C. P. C. Where therefore any particular charge is
not mentioned in the order affecting any individual accused, it is to be
understood that sec. 240 has been applied to it.
After these preliminary observations we proceed in the second part
of this Judgement to give an outline of the evidence and a short statement
360 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
of our reasons for finding the case as a whole established. The third and
concluding portion will deal with the case of individual accused. The
fact that we have been unanimous on every important question of fact
and law which has arisen during the trial enables us to curtail considerably
the two concluding portions of the judgment the more so as we have
during the course of the trial minutely analysed the effect and value of
every important piece of evidence adduced on either side.
PART II
1– NARRATIVE: AN OUTLINE OF THE EVIDENCE
Although the police had been aware for some years past of the
existence of a seditious movement in Benares, chiefly in connection with
the Sewak Samiti, the Young Men’s Association, and kindred societies,
their first real intimation of an organized movement forming a branch of
the Delhi and Lahore conspiracies was derived from the statement of
Mani Lal. Mani Lal’s name was not known to the Delhi approvers Ram
Nath and Shankar Lal, who were arrested respectively on the 31st March
and the 14th April and both of whom had made statements prior to his
arrest on April 21. Their statements led to enquiries at Rewa Shankar’s
eating house where Mani Lal stayed on one of his visits to Delhi, and it
was the discovery at this eating-house of a number of Mani Lal’s business
advertisements giving his name and his Benares address which enabled
the police to lay their hands on him. He is by occupation a commission
agent for the sale of Benares wares. Mani Lal’s statement enabled the
police to get hold of the third Benares approver Babu Ram in the early
part of June, and on June 26th, on information supplied by one of the
accused they arrested at the same house Bibhuti Bhushan Haldar and the
principal accused Sachindra Nath Sanyal. When Bibhuti consented to
make a statement at the beginning of August the whole case was complete
and it only remained to verify the details. The statements of Bibhuti and
of Mani Lal are the foundation of the whole case. Babu Ram and the two
Delhi approvers, though the latter supplied valuable information that
was unknown to Mani Lal, are of subordinate importance. The remaining
approver Dilla Singh and the Lahore witnesses are concerned mainly
with the case against the two ex-sepoys Dharam Singh and Jadu Nath
Singh which forms a distinct branch of the case and will be reserved for
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 361
separate treatment. Babu Ram was less in the secret of the conspirators
than either of the others and knows very few of their names. His
importance is that his house was made use of by the conspiracy as a place
of deposit for bombs and ammunition.
Putting aside Dilla Singh Shankar Lal is the least reliable of the
five approvers. His statement was the first to be recorded and form this
point of view is of value, but there are indications that in at least two
instances he has tried to extenuate his own share in the conspiracy. On
the other hand the notion that either of these men has been merely put up
to repeat a story put into his mouth by the police may be at once dismissed.
The Dy. S.P. Mr. Paghey; arranged a consultation between Mani
Lal and Babu Ram before recording the statement of Babu Ram. The
value of Babu Ram’s testimony as supporting the evidence of Mani Lal
is therefore considerably reduced. Stress may, however, be laid on the
remarkable coincidence in details in the statements of Bibhuti and Babu
Ram recorded at different places at different times and by different
officers. The defence, which was well posted up in all facts which may
cause the slightest suspicion of tutoring, never alleged that any of the
Delhi officers who were instrumental in obtaining the statement of Babu
Ram, ever took Bibhuti in hand. Babu Ram is not definite about his
dates, but when his account of the different arrivals and removals of
explosives and arms is carefully analysed; it fits in with the account
given by Bibhuti. According to Babu Ram; Narendra brought ten bombs,
etc, to Babu Ram’s house, then Bibhuti bought two bombs and took
them away, then Bibhuti brought a bomb, a cap and a revolver, then the
ten bombs, etc, brought by Narendra were taken away finally Bibhuti
took away a bomb, a revolver, a cap and a bottle. This statement bears
out the fuller details of these doings given by Bibhuti. It was Manmatha
who brought the ten bombs, etc, from Calcutta, Pashupati brought two
bombs from Calcutta, these two bombs were sent to Sachin by Bibhuti
through Preonath but Preonath brought one back the ten bombs brought
by Manmatha were taken away by Pingley, and the one bomb, etc, were
taken away by Nalini to Calcutta. Though Babu Ram has no memory for
definite dates, his recollection of the different occasions when bombs,
etc. were brought or taken away is very clear. Considering the widely
different circumstances in which the statements of these two approvers
were taken the conformity in details is deserving of notice and justifies
the reliance placed by this court on the testimony of Bibhuti.
362 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
The connection of both Bibhuti and Mani Lal with the revolutionary
movement arose out of their membership of a society known as the Young
Men’s Association. To this society all the Benares accused except one at
one time or another belonged, and the one exception Surendra Nath was
a member of a kindred organization, the Students’ Union League. The
society was founded by the accused Sachindra Nath in 1908 under the
title of Anushilan Samiti. Later on when the Anushilan Samiti of Dacca,
from which the title was borrowed became the subject of criminal
proceedings, the name was changed to the Young Men’s Association.
The ostensible objects of the society were the physical, moral and
intellectual improvement of its members. But beneath these were other
objects of a political character, and there is no doubt that Sachindra
aimed at making the society an instrument for the spread of sedition. As
Deb Narayan Mukherji, himself a former member, has told us, the
members used to express themselves vehemently against the actions of
the Government. According to Bibhuti the society contained an inner
circle consisting of those who were fully initiated into its real objects,
and the teaching of sedition was mainly affected through a so-called
moral class at which the Bhagwad Gita was so interpreted as to furnish a
justification even for assassination. At the performance of the annual
Kali Puja the sacrifice of a white pumpkin, a usual accompaniment of
the ceremony which has in itself no sinister significance, was made to
symbolize the white race, for whose expulsion a special prayer was
offered.
At the close of 1912 or early in 1913 two successive splits occurred
in the club. On the first occasion those members seceded who followed
the doctrines of one Khoka who taught that progress was to be made by
loving one’s fellow-men. These members objected to the political
activities of the society and to the tone of hostility to the Government
which characterized it. The second split was of a precisely opposite nature.
The seceders consisted of the most violent members of the association
headed by Sachindra. Their objection was that the society merely talked
but did nothing. After the split Sachindra formed a new party the object
of which was to get in touch with the Bengal anarchists and to carry on a
similar work in the United Provinces. The obtaining of arms and
ammunition, the manufacture of bombs, the distribution of seditious
literature, and tampering with the loyalty of the troops were among the
means to be employed. From this time the activities of Sachindra and his
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 363
friends became definitely criminal in character. According to Bibhuti
Sachindra did in fact get in touch with the Bengal anarchists through one
Makhan Babu who introduced him to Sasanka Mohan Hajra and Sachindra
used to visit Bengal from time to time and obtain both funds and bombs
from that source. In the autumn of 1913 seditious literature was distributed
by hand to a number of schools and colleges in Benares, while some
members pasted seditious leaflets on walls, and other copies of leaflets
were distributed through the post.
About the beginning of 1914 the notorious Rash Behari Bose appears
in Benares and the leadership of the movement, hitherto held by Sachin,
falls naturally and immediately into his hands. It is a remarkable fact
that Rash Behari, though a reward was offered for his arrest and his
photograph had been widely circulated should have succeeded in living
in Benares during nearly the whole of the year 1914 without the police
being aware of his presence. He seems to have taken the precaution of
going out chiefly at night, but in the early part of his stay interviews are
described as taking place in the day time out of doors either in the Victoria
Park or some other garden, Bibhuti describes his introduction to him as
taking place in a garden near Rath Tola not far from the Central Hindu
College in presence of Sachindra, Nalini and Kalipado accused, and
Narendra Nath Banerji and Preonath Bhattacharji who are among the
absconders. A house was taken for Rash Behari in Misri Pokhra behind
the Jageshwar Press, and there he is said to have lived from February to
November 1914. He was frequently visited by the different members of
the conspiracy and on one occasion he gave a demonstration of the use of
bombs and revolvers. Among the accused who are not Benares residents
he was visited by Bankim Chandra, Damodar, Partab Singh and Lachhmi
Narain. Any bombs, arms and ammunition in the possession of the
conspirators were kept at the house of the approver Babu Ram. Babu
Ram was nevertheless quite a subordinate member of the conspiracy and
was far less in the secrets of the party than either Bibhuti or Mani Lal.
At this house in Misri Pokhra on the night of 18th November, 1914
(Bibhuti parts the time at 7 P. m.) an incident occurred which is of
considerable importance in connexion with the case. Two bomb caps
which Rash Behari was examining exploded injuring him severely and
Sachindra Nath slightly. The persons present on the occasion were Rash
Behari and his cook Manmatha Nath, Sachindra accused, Narendra Nath
Banerji, Jamna Das, and the approver Bibhuti.
364 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Immediately after the explosion the party except Manmatha Nath
left the house and Rash Behari was removed to another house at Kedar
Ghat belonging to one Ganesh Chandra Bapuli. To appease the curiosity
of the women living in the house who were alarmed by the explosion, it
was given out that it was due to the bursting of a soda-water bottle. Next
day Bibhuti purchased various drugs such as iodine, permanganate, boric
cotton and hydrogen peroxide, for the treatment of Rash Behari’s hurts.
Shortly after this Bibhuti had to leave Benares for a time in connexion
with the illness and death of his father. On his return, when visiting Rash
Behari at the Kedar Ghat house, he met another notorious anarchist,
Vishnu Ganesh Pingley, who has since been tried and executed in the
Lahore Conspiracy Case. Bibhuti was subsequently taken to Lahore by
Mr. Richardson, Deputy Inspector-General, and was able immediately
to identify Pingley among the twenty-four condemned prisoners in the
Lahore Jail (vide p. 164, p. w. 37). On his return from his father’s
funeral in Jan. 1915, he had been away twice, once during his father’s
illness and again on hearing of his death, Bibhuti found Rash Behari
established in a third house near Harish Chandra Ghat. In that house an
important meeting was held, attended by Sachin, Damodar, Pingley,
Narendra Nath, Vinayak Rao, Jamna Das, Bibhuti at which Rash Behari
announced that a rebellion was to take place all over the country and that
the time had come when they must prepare to die for their country.
Damodar was to be the leader at Allahabad; Rash Behari himself was
going to Lahore with Sachin and Pingley. Two men were assigned to
bring bombs and arms from Bengal, and two others, one of whom was
Vinayak Rao, to take them to the Punjab. Bibhuti and Preonath were to
seduce the troops at Benares, while Nalini was to go to Jubbulpore for
the same purpose. Bibhuti did subsequently have several interviews with
the sepoys of the 7th Rajputs at Benares, and in company with Preonath
he made an unsuccessful attempt to approach the troops of His Highness
the Maharaja. Apart from Bibhuti there is evidence on the record which
leaves no possible doubt that an attempt was made to corrupt the fidelity
of the 7th Rajputs. One of the members who listened to these overtures,
Lance-Naik Dilla Singh, reservist, has been examined as a witness, and
even if we regard his evidence as insufficient for the conviction of the
two ex-sepoys amongst the accused, Dharam Singh and Jadu Nath Singh,
there is no possible doubt as to Dilla Singh himself having been implicated.
Two of the Lahore conspirators, Sucha Singh and Kartar Singh, came
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 365
down to Benares for the purpose and Sucha Singh was subsequently able Benares
Bindhachal Witness goes back to bring
to identify Dilla Singh at a parade of 700 men of the regiment. L.N. who is unacquainted
From this time events moved rapidly. Rash Behari and Sachin both with Benares.
left Benares, and the centre of interest is shifted to Delhi and Lahore. (3 ) Delhi Jan. 22, 1915 P. 43, line 50 To press L.N. to answer
letters to the address of
Bibhuti has little to record of his personal activities during the important Ram Nath.
month of February, beyond interviews with Benares sepoys and an Jan. 24, 1915 Goes to station and meets
R.B.
unsuccessful visit to Dinapur at which he had an interview with a Havildar Jan. 25-26 Returns to Benares.
of the 89th Punjabis named Kaku Singh (vide evidence of Capt, Stuart, (4 ) Lahore Feb. 14-15 P. 44 and 45, With Vinayak Rao and 18
p. 230). Kaku Singh listened sympathetically but said that he was unable line 8. bombs
Excess fare to Lucknow
to do anything as the magazine was guarded by British soldiers. and Moradabad.
Our principal source of information for the events of this important Bharat hotel.
month is Mani Lal supplemented by the Delhi approvers Ram Nath and Parcel taken to R.B.
Journey Feb. 16 or 17 P. 45-45 Told to go to Delhi,
Shankar Lal. Seeing that both Mani Lal and Bibhuti were active members P. 40-34 then Multan, to announce
of the conspiracy in Benares during the same period it is remarkable that change in date and give
messages to L.N. and G.L.
how few points their narratives coincide. Indeed they barely knew each Delhi Feb. 17 Sees G.L. and Ram Nath.
other and Mani Lal was unacquainted with Bibhuti’s name. A certain Pt. Balkishan persuades
reticence in the matter of names was characteristic of the conspiracy. him to Kharwa.
Kharwa Feb. 17, 10 p.m. P. 47
The two narratives supplement and in many ways corroborate each other to 18, 8 a.m.
but the parts played by the two men were widely different and the two Journey Feb.18 Sees Raja.
narratives are obviously quite independent. Bibhuti worked chiefly at Journey Feb. 19 to 20
Lahore Feb. 20 P. 48-10 Reports to R.B. and shows
Benares and the only journeys he took were in the direction of Bengal, leaflet. Hears of arroats.
once to Dinapur and once to Chandernagore and Calcutta, Mani Lal, Gets four messages for
Raja.
who is a native of Kapadwanj in Western India, never on any occasion Journey Feb. 20 to 21 Sees G.L.
travelled east of Benares. On the other hand he visited Delhi repeatedly Delhi Feb. 21 P. 48-27 Asks Pt Balkishan to take
and Lahore twice and his most important mission was to Kharwa near messages to Raja.
Speaks to R.N. re
Marwar. A tabular statement of his journeys is given below and will be duplicator.
of assistance in understanding his evidence. Benares Feb. 21-22 P.48-44 With Partab.
Mani Lal’s movements (5 ) Delhi March 13 P. 49-16 With Partab.
Hardwar mela
(1 ) Delhi May, 1914 (he says P. 43, At the request of Sachin Delhi March 16 P.49-26 M. ji and Pingley arrive
June or July but it lines 24-44. to meet L.N. and tell him Kharwa P.49-45 With M. ji.
must have been that R.B. wants him Marwar P. 51-1 Meets the tall Charan
earlier) in Benares. and Partab.
(2 ) Bindraban To meet Sachin at the Kapadwanj 3rd April P. 51-9 Gets letter from R.B.
request of R.B. Benares April 12 P. 51-16
Muttra With Sachin.
Delhi To meet L.N.
Nizam-ud-din June 5 or 6, 1914 Where they meet L.N.
He took part in the distribution of seditious literature in November,
who has escaped from the 1913. (Bibhuti, who was ill at the time, did not), but apart from this his
Qazi. first important commission was to introduce Sachin to the accused Partab
Cawnpore Sachin a lights.
Bindhachal L.N. alights. Singh is a Charan from Rajputana and had a relative named Durga Dan

366 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 367
in Benares with whom Mani Lal was acquainted. As Partab Singh’s father
Kesri Singh had been sentenced to death in the Kotah murder case and
his estate confiscated and as Partab himself had come under suspicion in
the Arrah temple murder case (vide Mr. Paghey, p. 83; accused himself
says that he was actually arrested) he was doubtless considered a likely
recruit. Ultimately Partab Singh came to Benares and enquired for Mani
Lal and Mani Lal introduced him to Sachin. Next day Mani Lal met
Rash Behari who asked him to allow Partab and a tall Charan who had
come with him (and who from other evidence appears to have been the
absconder Ganesh Dan) to make use of his house.
Mani Lal’s first journey to Delhi was undertaken at the request of
Sachindra in order to induce the accused Lachhmi Narain to come to
Benares to see Rash Behari, Lachhmi Narain however was either
suspicious of Mani Lal’s good faith or unwilling to take any further part
in the conspiracy, and refused to know him. Sachin then proceded to
Delhi himself witness joining him at Bindraban and when Lachhmi Narain
saw Sachin he came down and had a private conversation with him. On
the way back to Benares Lachhmi Narain, who was then under surveillance
as a political suspect, joined them at Nizam-ud-din one or two stations
out from Delhi having evaded his watcher at Shahdara station. That
Lachhmi Narain did evade his watchers at Shahdara station on June 5th,
1914, is proved by independent evidence and admitted by Lachhmi Narain
himself.
On 22nd Jany, 1915, Mani Lal was again sent to Delhi with a
message to Lachhmi Narain who had failed to reply to letters from
Sachindra addressed to him under cover of Ram Nath. Apparently the
heads of the party were afraid of Lachmi Narain’s defection and not
without reason as Lachhmi Narain told Mani Lal in plain terms that he
wished to sever his connexion with the party as his Guru forbade him to
join them. Ganeshi Lal, accused, whom Mani Lal met about the same
time also said that he had severed his connexion having suffered much.
One cannot help remarking here how very unlike this is to a fabricated
story. On the theory which has been pressed on us by the defence that
Mani had been coached up by the police with a false story the object of
which was to secure the punishment of the accused, it would be most
inconsistent for them to represent two men whom they wished to implicate
as being tired of the whole business and desirous to have nothing more to
do with it, and Lachhmi Narain as refusing to recognize Rash Behari’s
368 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
messenger or to answer Sachin’s letters. Nor can one fail to be struck by
the extreme improbability of Mani Lal, who though a very intelligent
man, is by no means a genius, remembering a story so full of details,
unless that story is true, without committing himself at some points to
some glaring absurdity. In fact, little points of corroboration meet one
almost at every step of the narrative.
It was also true that Ganeshi Lal had suffered through his connexion
with the conspiracy. He had been prosecuted for two seditious poems in
1908 and was only discharged on making an abject apology and a promise
to amend his ways for the future. He had also been subsequently under
surveillance, and as he himself asserts very irksome surveillance, for a
considerable period before Mani Lal met him.
One Feb. 14, Mani Lal by Sachindra’s order left Benares for Lahore
in company with Vinayak Rao and did not return till Feb. 22. They
carried with them a parcel said by Vinayak to contain materials for
eighteen bombs. In order to protect the parcel from accidental contact as
the train was crowded they travelled intermediate from Lucknow and
paid excess fare both at Lucknow and Moradabad. They had originally
taken third class tickets. Here again there is definite corroboration. The
books of the railway prove that excess fare was paid on 14th and 15th
February on the same two third class tickets from Benares to Lahore,
first at Lucknow and again at Saharanpur (the witness has made a mistake
in saying Moradabad) and one of the excess fare memos is actually signed
“Vinayak Ram”.
The period of Mani Lal’s absence from Benares on this occasion is
the most important in the whole history of the conspiracy, since if the
plans of the conspirators had worked out as they hoped and intended, an
armed rebellion was to have broken out simultaneously on Feb. 21st,
1915, at nearly every important centre of Northern India, Mani Lal was
first informed of the date by Rash Behari on Feb. 16 at Lahore, but
almost immediately afterwards it was hurriedly changed to the 19th on
account of some suspicious circumstances observed in the demeanour of
one of the men who was in the secret. There is reason to believe that
their suspicious were well founded. Mani Lal was sent back to inform
the members of the party at Delhi of the change. The conspirators at
Benares as we know from Bibhuti, never learnt of the change of date at
all and actually waited on the maidan on the evening of the 21st in the
hope of a rising taking place.
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 369
 Mani Lal’s original orders had been to go on from Delhi to Multan
but while at Delhi he was persuaded by another conspirator, one Pandit
Balkishan, to go instead to Kharwa to interview the Rao Sahib, Thakur
Gopal Singh, who was said to be ready to rebel. The full account of
Mani Lal’s journey to Kharwa and his interview with the Rao will be
found on page 47 of the printed evidence, and it is unnecessary to reproduce
it here. Briefly he was admitted by means of a passport and the Raja
expressed his willingness to provide 5,000 men for a rising provided he
could procure money and arms to equip them. He also spoke of the
Maharaja of Bikaner as being an obstacle to their plans and asked for
men to teach bomb making. Mani Lal spent the fateful 19th February in
the train and reached Lahore on the morning of the 20th. He learnt from
Rash Behari that many arrests had taken place and was advised to go into
hiding for a time. He was however first to tell the Delhi people that in
consequence of what had taken place the rising was postponed but that
they were to be ready for a fresh rising in two months’ time. In March
Mani Lal went home to his native place at Kapadwanj but on the way he
paid a second visit to Kharwa. This visit was made under the instructions
of Rash Behari in order to introduce to the Rao the accused Damodar
Sarup (whom Mani Lal only knew under the title of Masterji given him
in allusion to the fact that he was a master in the High school at Rae
Bareli) and thus provide an alternative channel of communication. Mani
Lal was introduced to Damodar by Bibhuti and Preonath (p. 49, 1, 11)
this being one of the few occasions on which Mani Lal and Bibhuti met
(see also Bibhuti’s evidence p. 12, lines 13 to 20). Of this second visit
also witness has given a full and detailed account (pp. 49 and 50.) The
Raja expatiated on his grievances against the Political Agent and said
that he wanted Partab Singh to testify in his favour, but he promised to
supply the party with two revolvers which he had without a licence and
could therefore dispose of without danger of enquiry. As one of these
revolvers was out of repair Damodar remained behind to bring them
away. This part of case has lost some of its importance by the withdrawal
of the prosecution against Rao Gopal Singh, a withdrawal made for special
reasons and in no way implying any doubt of his complicity on the part
of the Crown-but it is still of high significance as throwing into strong
relief the real object of the conspiracy viz. to wage war against the king
and to subvert by armed force the Government of British India.
Just before Mani Lal’s return to Benares an incident occurred this
370 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
is mentioned in different ways both by Mani Lal and Babu Ram and
which assumes a prominent place in the narrative of the latter, the receipt
of a parcel said by Sachindra to contain two hundred cartridges. This
incident is of special importance because of the exceptionally large amount
of corroborative evidence which is forthcoming with regard to it.
Perhaps the most dramatic incident in Bibhuti’s narrative is his
final interview with Rash Rehari at Calcutta in a room above the
Dhurumtollah post office. After Mani Lal’s arrest (Bibhuti’s though his
memory for incidents is excellent is not very good at fixing dates and
cannot give the exact date) Nalini, accused, showed Bibhuti a letter from
Rash Behari expressing a wish to see Bibhuti and Damodar at Calcutta.
They accordingly set out, the absconder Pashupati Nath accompanying
them as far as Chandernagore. There they put at the house of one Suresh
Babu at Futtuk (or Photok) Gora. Next day then went on to Calcutta
where they were met by Pashupati who had preceded them and by one
Amar Nath to whose house they went. They were then taken to
Dhurumtollah to a shop where Pashupati again met them.
PART II
2 – THE STAMENTS OF THE APPOVERS EXAMINED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE.
The mass of corroborative evidence substantiating the narratives
of Bibhuti and Mani Lal is so great that we can only deal with it under a
few main incidents and heads as detailed below. We shall then discuss
the principal grounds on which their evidence has been attacked, and
shall conclude with a brief statement of our conclusions regarding them.
List of heads under which corroborative is discussed.
I. Explosion.
II. Receipt of parcel Feb.29th, 1915.
III. Despatch of ten bombs to Meerut March, 1915.
IV. Tampering with troops.
V. Mani Lal’s visit to Delhi, Lahore and Kharwa.
VI. Distribution of seditious leaflets.
VII. Bibhuti’s visit to Chandernagore and Calcutta in May, 1915.
VIII. Houses occupied by conspirators in Benares.
IX. The Young Men’s Association.
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 371
 X. Miscellaneous.
I. The explosion
The explosion is one of the most important incidents in the whole
history of the trial, and its importance has been fully realized by the
defence, which has made every endeavour to attack the evidence on which
it rests. Its importance is heightened by the fact that it is an incident with
which Bibhuti could not possibly have been tutored.
No previous approver had mentioned it and the police had not a
hint of its having taken place till they heard Bibhuti’s story. This has
been explicitly stated by Mr. Sands. The theory urged by the defence
has been that Bibhuti’s evidence is the result of coaching by some police
officer who was well up in the facts elicited from earlier approvers specially
Jamna Das. Here is a test case in face of which the theory breaks down.
The only thing known to the police was that in one of the later portraits
of Rash Behari, Ex. 45, which were circulated, he was said to have an
injury to the hand due to the explosion of a soda-water bottle. This, so
far from damaging the prosecution case strongly confirms it. This
according to Bibhuti, was the explanation given out by Rash Behari and
his companions in answer to enquirers and is therefore just the story that
the police might have got hold of from persons who had come in contact
with Rash Behari but had not been present at the time.
Of the explosion itself we have direct corroboration in the evidence
of Dr. D. N. Bose a retired medical practitioner, whose mother-in-law
owns the house where Rash Behari was living and where the explosion
occurred. Dr. Bose was staying in the house at the time. He was able to
recognize Rash Behari from a portrait shown to him, but he had been so
much impressed by Rash Behari’s learning and manner that when doing
so he said he could hardly even now believe that this was the man who
had been his tenant. He had even submitted to Rash Behari’s judgment a
paper he had written on the test of Vedic authority. Witness was also
enabled to identify Sachindra Nath as a man who had visited the house.
He further proved that Rash Behari was accompanied by one Manmatha
who used to cook for him and that he treated Manmatha on two occasions
during his stay once for dysentery and once for fever. The prosecution
has been able to produce two original prescriptions written by Dr. Bose
for Manmatha (dated the 5th and 7th September, 1914). from Messrs.
Mukerji and Co’s dispensary where they were made up. This is important
372 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
as Manmatha had already been mentioned by Bibhuti as one of the persons
who cooked for Rash Behari at the Misri Pokhra house.
Dr. Bose impressed us strongly as an absolutely truthful and reliable
witness. He is a man who has held important positions, having been at
one time health officer to the Chhapra municipality and at another medical
officer to a large colliery station. He retired from practice some years
ago and is now, at the age of 73, spending a quiet old age at Calcutta and
Benares. He appears to be a man of a somewhat timid disposition and
was evidently nervous of the risk involved in coming forward to give
evidence for the prosecution, and we do not think that any bribe the
police could have offered him would have been sufficient to induce him
to come forward to give false evidence in this case.
Dr. Bose was not in the house when the explosion occurred. On his
return he was told of it by the ladies of the house and went up to see what
had happened. He found only Manmatha there (this is in accordance
with Bibhuti’s statement that Manmatha alone remained behind) and
Manmatha declared that a soda-water bottle had burst had showed him
the broken bottle to confirm with the fact. The ladies who had heard the
explosion were not altogether satisfied with the explanation and spoke of
a “boma”, meaning one of those harmless bombs, called in these provinces
golas, which are such a favourite feature of Indian fireworks displays.
Dr. Bose’s mother-in-law, aged 93, who was in the house at the time of
the explosion, has also been called (p. 140). She does not recollect using
the word “boma” but she says the explosion was so loud that it shook the
whole building. This witness is a very old woman, nearly blind, and so
feeble that she had to give her evidence sitting on the ground, and her
memory is to some extent impaired. Where her recollection differs from
that of Dr. Bose we should have no hesitation in preferring the statement
of the latter. The old lady Musammat Rai Moni Dasi thinks that the
explosion took place in Kuar (September or October) whereas the date is
definitely fixed by other evidence as November, 18. When therefore she
gives it as her opinion that the supposed Narendra Nath Bose (this was
the alias under which Rash Behari was passing) only began to occupy the
house in Jeth we do not think that her recollection, unsupported as it is
any memorandum is sufficiently reliable to cast any serious doubt on
Bibhuti’s statement that Rash Behari had been living there since February.
Dr. Bose only came up from Calcutta in August so that he could not
speak as to the commencement of the tenancy. One interesting detail is
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 373
added by the old lady which further confirms Bibhuti She says that prior
to Manmatha’s coming one Ashu used to cook for the supposed Noren.
Now the absconder Ashutosh Raj, accused no. 16, of which name Ashu
is a common abbreviation, is the second of the three persons who used at
different times to cook for Rash Behari, vide Bibhuti page 5 and Hiranmoy
page 120. Another very important detail is supplied by Dr. Bose himself.
He says that on examining the room after the tenants had left he found in
an earthen pot some white powder which on examination he took to be
carbonate of lime. Both Bibhuti and Babu Ram in their account of the
story of bombs have mentioned that the bombs used to be kept along
with a white powder the object of which was to protect them from damp.
It has been urged against Dr. Bose that the explosion and at any
rate the finding of the powder should have been mentioned in his diary.
We have examined this diary, which he very readily produced when it
was asked for, and have satisfied our selves that the entries in it are of a
purely personal kind and that an incident of the kind described would not
have been at all likely to find a place in it. Apart from this detached
observation the defence counsel has not ventured to contend that Dr.
Bose is not a true witness and indeed in the portion of the argument
specifically dealing with the explosion his name was never once mentioned.
Another important point in which Dr. Bose and his mother-in-law
both corroborate Bibhuti is that the supposed Narendra Nath Bose left
the house on the night of the explosion and never came back, and that
Manmatha paid the rent and settled up next morning. It is inconceivable
that the bursting of a soda-water bottle should have induced the supposed
Narendra Nath to leave in such frantic haste a lodging where even according
to Raj Moni Dasi he had been staying some months, but if it was in truth
a bomb cap which exploded one can understand that the party might
consider it desirable to lose no time in securing fresh quarters. The house
to which Rash Behari was moved next day (he spent the night with Narendra
Nath Banerji) was the house of Ganesh Chandra Bapuli at Kedar Ghat
and was subsequently pointed out by Bibhuti to the police. Bapuli has
been called as a witness and his evidence confirms that of Bibhuti alike
in its agreement and in its divergence. Bibhuti has stated that the house
was really taken on the day after the explosion i.e., the 19th November
but that the written memorandum was dated one day earlier in case of a
possible police inquiry. Now Bapuli’s books show the 18th November as
the date of the taking of the house, as according to Bibhuti they should
374 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
do. Bapuli does not, it is true, admit that the entry was ante-dated but, as
one of our number who has a large small cause court experience points
out, a man who is liable to have to produce his books to support a suit for
rent in the S.C.C. would never admit having entered a false date or he
would be liable to have the fact brought up against him in every subsequent
suit he had occasion to file. Bapuli did not identify Rash Behari from the
photograph shown to him indeed he says he does not think he has seen
the original of the photo, but he admits identifying in the Lahore case
the man who cooked for Rash Behari, Jamna Das. This man is the third
of the trio who at various times cooked for Rash Behari. He was convicted
in the Lahore case and he at one time pointed out Bapuli’s houses to the
police as a house where he had stayed with his master. It has been
suggested that the police got Bibhuti to point out the house by making
use of this knowledge but the suggestion falls to the ground in view of
the fact that Jamna Das had said not a word as to the Misri Pokhra house
and the police had no information regarding this house prior to Bibhuti’s
statement.
The last item of corroboration is furnished by the books of the
Durga Medical Hall where Bibhuti says he purchased certain remedies
for Rash Behari on the morning after the explosion. The books show that
the precise articles mentioned by Bibhuti were sold on 19th November
and with the exception of the boric cotton which comes under another
head the entries are consecutive entries thus suggesting that they were
sold at the same time. The books also show the sale of hydrogen peroxide
on the 20th . It will be remembered that Bibhuti says he purchased
hydrogen-peroxide one day later. Bibhuti has also stated that on the day
after the explosion he purchased a pair of scissors at Ohdedar’s shop and
the books of the shop show that a pair of scissors was sold for 15 annas
on 19th November. Finally we have the fact proved from the school register
that Bibhuti was absent from school on 18th and 19th November 1914 and
subsequent dates.
We have dealt on this incident at perhaps disproportionate length
partly because of its intrinsic importance and because it was placed in the
forefront of the attack by accused’s counsel on the prosecution case, but
mainly because it enables us better than any other to test the truth of the
defence theory according to which Bibhuti’s evidence is a purely concocted
story put into his mouth by Inspr: Mukerji. The result of our examination
is decisive against that theory. The evidence placed before us is such as
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 375
to leave no doubt in our minds as to the truth of this part of Bibhuti’s
evidence and it is a story the details of which could not possibly have
been supplied to him by any officer either in Benares or elsewhere. The
defence theory has been that Bibhuti never had anything to do with any
conspiracy but has been coached by Inspr. Mukerji with information
obtained from the Punjab approvers, but mainly from Jamna Das, and
from the police records of the Y.M.A., with of course the necessary
colour added. This one incident of the explosion is sufficient to refute
that theory. As Mr. Sands said in re-examination (p. 297) “There was
no officer working under me in Benares with sufficient knowledge of
matters political to have coached Bibhuti with the statement he made.”
“I my-self,” says Mr. Sands, “could not have done so,” and Mr. Sands
knows more regarding political offenders than any other officer in the
provinces. The incident, being established further rebuts the suggestion
which has been made more than once in argument that the whole talk of
bombs in connexion with the prosecution evidence is nothing more than
a figment of the imagination.
II. Receipt of the parcel of the cartridges on Feb. 20, 1915.
Mani Lal told us that before he left Benares he had received a visit
from the Charan previously mentioned, Ganesh Dan, and that Sachindra
had asked the latter to procure some cartridges from Marwar. Some
discussion took place as to how they were to be brought but finally it was
decided that they should be sent as a parcel addressed to Mani Lal. Before
Mani Lal left he arranged with the post office that all letters received for
him in his absence should be handed over to one Ishwar Lal who was
living at the same address, and when the letter came enclosing a rail
receipt Ishwar Lal was to hand it ti Babu Ram. On his return from Lahore
and Kharwa Mani Lal learnt that the parcel had been duly received and
was told of the means adopted to evade its examination at the octroi
barrier. He was also told by Sachindra that the parcel had contained two
hundred cartridges. The full story is given by Babu Ram on p. 66. Babu
Ram states that he had received instructions from Mani Lal before the
latter’s departure that Ishwar Lal would bring him a rail receipt and that
he was to obtain delivery and give the parcel either to Sachindra or to
Narendra Nath. When the rail receipt arrived and was handed him by
Ishwar Lal he took it to Narendra Nath and was informed by Narendra
and Sachindra that he was to take delivery in the name of Suraj Mal and
376 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
that the parcel was consigned to in the name of Budh Mal. He was given
Rs. 6 to pay the freight. When he asked Sachindra what was in the parcel
he was told that it was food for a gun. He went down and took delivery
of the box and the octroi examination was dodged by placing it in a tikka
gharry and telling the driver to drive furiously to the city as if he was
carrying a fare from the station.
Of this incident we have the following corroborative evidence
elicited through enquires made in consequences of the statement of the
approvers:–
(1) The registers of the city post-office and the evidence of the
post master (page 255) show that on February 3, Mani Lal
sent written instructions to the post master to deliver letters to
Ishwar Lal during his absence.
(2) Badri Prasad the then station master of Asaranada and Babu
Lal the booking clerk prove (pp. 236 and 250) that Ganesh
Dan Charan and another man arrived at Asaranada station by
the night train, stayed at the station till morning, and then
booked as a parcel a box weighing 20 seers to Benares
Cantonment on February 17, Ganesh Dan gave his companion’s
name as Budh Mal and consigned the parcel to Suraj Mal.
The books of the station prove its dispatch. The witness could
have no difficulty in recalling the incident as Asaranada is a
station in the jungle about twelve miles from Jodhpur with no
village nearer than five or six miles, and this was not only the
only parcel booked that day but the only parcel booked to a
station on another line of railway since the station was opened.
(3) The books of the Benares Cantonment show that delivery was
obtained of the parcel, which weighed 20 seers, and Rs. 4-2-
0 paid as freight on February 20. The parcel, by the way, was
described as containing sweets.
We have thus every possible corroboration of the story short of
obtaining the evidence of the gharrywala who drove Babu Ram from the
station and the corroboration obtained furnishes independent evidence of
the suspicious nature of the parcel. The only possible motive for taking
the parcel to Asaranada to be booked is that this is a small station which
would prima facie be a most unlikely place for illicit ammunition to be
booked from and where, therefore, enquiries were not likely to be made.
The only point on which the evidence does not corroborate Mani
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 377
Lal is that he had been led to understand that the parcel would be sent by
registered post and still thinks it was so sent, whereas it appears that no
registered letter was delivered to Ishwar Lal. We note however that while
the letter sent by Mani Lal to the post master mentioned registered articles
and money orders the instructions entered in the post office register. Ex,
140 were to deliver all articles to Ishwar Lal.
III. Despatch of ten bombs to Meerut March, 1915
The next piece of corroboration to be considered consists of the
evidence of Mr. Wilkinson, A. S. P. of Meerut, proving the finding of
ten loaded bombs in the barracks of the 12th Cavalry at Meerut on 23rd
March, 1915. The discovery led to a court-material and the hanging of
four men. This evidence is important in two aspects. In the first place it
forms a keystone uniting and giving coherence to a number of separate
pieces of evidence on the part of the approvers and enabling them to
support the weight of a very serious conclusion. From another point of
view it shows that the conspiracy was capable of producing very deadly
results. Much of the evidence to which we have listened deals with secret
conferences, mysterious flitting, correspondence sent and received under
feigned names, and the usual stuff of conspiracies but it is impossible to
treat these things as trivialities when we find that they lead to the
accumulation of an amount of explosive sufficient to annihilate half a
regiment and which no doubt but for the discovery would have been used
to deadly purpose. It also corroborates the statements of Bibhuti and the
other approvers as to the attempts which were made to tamper with the
troops.
Pingley, as we know from the evidence of Shankar Lal coupled
with the subsequent identification proceedings and other evidence, visited
Meerut between 16th and 18th March and saw at the native cavalry barracks
there a man described as a sirdar whose name turned out to be Nadir
Khan. Bibhuti has told us (p. 13 from line 11) that after this visit he met
Pingley in Benares and the latter informed him that a revolution had
been fixed to take place at Meerut, that some cavalry men were ready to
rebel and that he had an Afghan dafadar with him in Benares for the
purpose of taking back some bombs. Witness with another conspirator
Preonath took Pingley to Babu Ram’s house where there was then a store
of ten bombs and delivered these bombs to him in a tin trunk along with
their caps, a bottle of solution and some essence bottles into which to
378 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
pour the solution. The trunk was taken at night to a ghat on the Ganges
where Pingley met the Afgan Dafadar. The party then came back to the
chauk where Pingley and the dafadar chartered an ekka and drove off
with the trunk of bombs to Kashi station. Babu Ram has also described
his part in this incident on page 67. He has told us how these bombs had
been kept in the house he had taken at Lalta Ghat and how they were
taken away in the latter half of Chait (March) by Bibhuti Preonath and,
as he remembers it, two other men. Babu Ram has described the purchase
of the trunk in the previous aghan and stated where he bought it and
what he paid for it. The description of the shop is a peculiar one as it as
a shop inside the shop of the Bengal Paper Co. Its books have been
examined and prove the sale of a tin trunk at the price stated by Babu
Ram on 8th November. The last detail is no doubt a small one but an
examination of other entries shows that sales of this particular pattern or
trunk at this particular price were not at all frequent. Both Babu Ram
and Bibhuti have given a description of the bombs which were made by
filling with explosive ordinary cigarette or tobacco tins and placing round
the outside large nails wrapped round with wire. For the sake of safety
the bombs and caps were kept separate until the time for their use. We
have thus evidence of two witnesses given in a perfectly natural way
showing the taking away by Pingley and the Afgan sepoy of ten bombs
to Meerut a few days after the 18th of March. We have it also that the
bombs were of a peculiar type. We have evidence from an entirely different
source showing that a few days earlier Pingley had been in communication
with a Pathan sepoy named Nadir Khan at the barracks in Meerut. We
find that on 23rd March when the raid was made Pingley was actually
discovered inside the barracks along with this very man Nadir Khan and
that in the room were ten bombs of the particular pattern described as
stored in Benares with caps and essence bottles and that the bombs were
loaded. Not only so, but Pingley had hanging up behind up his seat a
coat which, though Mr. Wilkinson cannot swear to it, is exactly like the
one which Pingley had previously taken away from Ram Nath’s when he
left his own to be washed. The importance of this evidence, both as
corroboration and as exposing the dangerous nature of the conspiracy,
can hardly be overstated.
This part of the case has been attacked on two grounds; first that
Bibhuti’s accounts of the time when the bombs were taken from Benares
do not tally, and secondly that Nadir Khan has given in the Lahore case
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 379
a different account of the same incident. There is no provision of the
Evidence Act under which a statement of Nadir Khan, who is not a
witness in this case, given in another trial to when the present accused
were not parties, could possibly be relevant, but as Mr. Rose Alston, in
his desire to be perfectly fair to the accused stated that he was willing to
admit that Nadir Khan did give at Lahore trial the evidence attributed to
him in the judgement in that case, we have felt bound to look into the
matter to see whether there is anything in it which could affect our opinion
of Bibhuti’s reliability. The difficulty of estimating the value of statements
made by a witness whom we have not seen in a trial between different
parties in which his attention was never directed to the point now raised
before us inclines us to doubt the wisdom of departing from the strict
law of evidence in the matter, but on an examination of the passage
referred to we find that there is nothing which directly contradicts Bibhuti’s
testimony. All that Nadir Khan is reported to have said, the passage will
be found at the top of page 3of the portion of judgement referring to
Pingley, accused No, 59, is that on arrival at Benares on March 21 he
changed into Bengali costume, was given dark glasses to wear, and was
taken to the house of a Bengali who showed him a bomb. He reached
Meerut on the night of March 22 with Pingley and a trunk containing ten
bombs and 10 phials. The fact that he was taken to a house and shown a
bomb certainly does not prove that he was present at Babu Ram’s house
when the ten bombs and the trunk were taken away. Probably if Nadir
Khan did visit Babu Ram’s house he was sent back to the ghat in advance
of the bombs.
But assuming that there is a discrepancy between the two stories we
see no reason for thinking that Bibhuti’s evidence is false. There is in
particular one little touch in his story which is absolutely natural and
appropriate when all the circumstances are taken into account but so little
obvious that it would require a remarkably subtle mind to invent it. Bibhuti
says that on arrival at the ghat with the bombs they found the dafadar
waiting and that he seemed very glad to see Pingley. Considering that
Nadir Khan had already revealed the plot to the authorities and stood in
hourly peril of his life if any suspicion should be aroused one can understand
that he was very glad to see Pingley. On the other hand the very diversity
between the two accounts reduces to absurdity the theory that Bibhuti was
primed with this incident on the basis of the Lahore evidence. Nadir Khan
being made to wear dark goggles and in this disguise being to visit a house
380 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
where he was shown a bomb is such an obvious detail that it is almost first
thing with which anyone dictating the story to Bibhuti would have coached
him, and the last he would be likely to forget.
The first ground of attack has this much truth in it that Bibhuti has
unquestionably made a mistake in describing the time at which the bombs
were taken away. He says that it was after Rash Behari’s final departure
from Benares. Elsewhere he says that this departure took place after the
Matriculation Examination and that Rash Behari was accompanied by
the accused Nalini whom witness saw him again four days afterwards.
Combining these statements we should get a date subsequent to March
24 to the taking away of the bombs, whereas they were actually discovered
at Meerut on March 23, and must have been taken from Benares on
March, 21 or 22. We have, however constantly had occasion to notice in
the course of Bibhuti’s vidence that while his memory for events is
excellent, his memory for times and dates is not nearly so good. Except
for the important date, 21st February, which he could not possibly forget,
and events occurring within a few days of this, there is hardly a date to
be found in his whole narrative; whereas there are several mistakes as to
time which could not possibly be due to anything but pure mistake. Thus
on the very same page in which the incident of the ten bombs is described
(p. 10-34) he said that he afterwards on 27th or 28th April saw at the
Carmichaol library Pioneer containing the account of Pingley’s arrest.
The Pioneer in question was produced by the prosecution and was found
to be the issue of March, 29. Then again he stated on page 1 of his
evidence that his statement to the Joint Magistrate was recorded some
fifteen days after he first expressed to Mr. Richardson his willingness to
make a statement. The time was in fact exactly a week. In both these
cases there can be no question that the error is due to anything but defective
memory. Similarly he was two months out in his first recollection of the
date of the explosion which he at first put in his statement to the Joint
Magistrate as taking place in September and even in this court he could
get no nearer than that it was some time after the Durga Puja. Where
therefore we find Bibhuti stating incorrectly the time of an event as to
which his evidence is in other respects corroborated, it is more reasonable
to attribute the error to a mistake than to a deliberate falsehood.
IV. Tampering with troops.
The evidence on this head is fragmentary but it is none the less
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 381
convincing. Direct evidence is obviously most difficult to obtain. No
sepoy is likely to come forward voluntarily to say that he listened to
overtures of this kind when by doing so he renders himself liable to be
tried by court-material on a capital charge. Even by being cognizant of
such overtures without any active participation he commits, unless he at
once informs the authorities, an offence under section 123, I.P.C, the
very offences with which the two ex-sepoys in this case are specially
charged. There is also the fact that several regiments alleged to have
been approached are now on active service. The only corroboration that
can reasonably be looked for is the ability of the approver to identify the
men with whom he had dealings and the places where he saw them.
Where no innocent explanation can be given of his knowing them, this is
however sufficient.
In this case we have the evidence of —
1. Attempts by conspirators to tamper with the 7th Rajputs at
Benares.
2. Similar attempts by Bibhuti and Preonath with the troops of
the Maharaja in February, 1915.
3. Visit of Bibhuti to Dinapore about Feb., 19.
In the case of the 7th Rajputs one of the men approached, Lance
Naik Dilla Singh reservist has been made an approver. His evidence as to
interviews with the conspirators is as will be shown later, not altogether
consistent with Bibhuti’s but there can be no doubt that he himself had
been tampered with. He was picked out by Sucha Singh one of the Lahore
conspirators, from among a parade of seven hundred men. This fact is
not challenged by the defense, but they dispute Dilla Singh’s acquaintance
with either Bibhuti or any of the accused. Dilla Singh was however able
to identify Sachindra at the Central Jail (though like several witnesses he
hesitated at first between Rabindra and Sachindra who are very much
alike) in spite of the fact that Sachindra professes never to have seen him
in his life. He was also recognized at first sight by Bibhuti when paraded
with a number of armed police in plain clothes at the Magistrate’s
bungalow. Bibhuti was also to identify at Delhi another man of the same
regiment named Jaleshwar Singh who was detained there pending trial
by court-material. Three pensioned sepoys also proved interviews between
Dilla Singh and Bengalis at the barracks. It was suggested that as there
are rules forbidding outsiders to enter the lines it would have been
impossible for any Bengali to come to the barracks as described by Dilla
382 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Singh. This suggestion, so far as the Benares lines in the earlier months
of 1915 are concerned, is disposed of by the evidence of Major Hume. It
is also difficult to get over the fact that in spite of all regulations Pingley
was actually arrested on March 23 inside the barracks of the 12th Cavalry
at Meerut. As the regards the attempt on the Maharaja’s troops Mr. Roe
proves (p. 168) that Bibhuti was able to identify one sepoy Bishunath
Pande, whom he had mentioned in his statement at a parade of seventy-
five men and also pointed out Bishunath’s quarters in the lines. This man
Bishunath was called as a witness and though he was evidently anxious to
avoid saying anything that might incriminate himself he admitted that
two Bengalis did on one occasion come to the lines and speak to him and
that one of the two afterwards identified him at the parade spoken of by
Mr. Roe.
Bibhuti says in cross-examination that his visit to Dinapore must
have been on February 17 or 18. The school registers show that it could
not have been before the 19th. Dates, we know , are not Bibhuti’s strong
point, but his subsequent identification of Kaku Singh at a Parade held
by Capt. Stuart (page 280) and his ability to take Mr. Richardson to the
lines and point out the room where the interview was held (page 164) are
strong evidence of his having been there. Bibhuti had prior to the
identification proceedings given the name of the man he saw at Dinapore
as Kaku Singh. No explanation has been suggested how, unless his story
is true, Bibhuti could have identified this man or why he should have
been to the lines at Dinapore at all. It has indeed been argued that it
would be a futile and absurd proceeding to send a man to try and tamper
with a regiment within three days of the date fixed for the rising. If
Bibhuti’s was the first and the only attempt made to approach this regiment
there might be some force in the suggestion, but the probabilities are that
a good deal had gone on in the way of tampering with regiments of
which Bibhuti himself was unaware and of which no evidence has been
procurable.
It may also be pointed out, both in regard to this and to Nalini’s
similar expedition to Jubbulpore at about the same time, that the rising
on which the heads of the conspiracy built their hopes was that which
was to take place in the Punjab, and that it would be highly valuable to
them to let other regiments know what was intended so that in case the
first outbreak was successful any discontented regiments elsewhere might
be prepared to follow their example.
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 383
 Dilla Singh, approver:— Though the statements of Bibhuti and
Dilla Singh differ in the details regarding the different meetings between
Dilla Singh and the Bengalis, with a view to seduce the troops here,
there can be little doubt as to those meetings taking place. Bibhuti
mentioned Dilla Singh’s name in his statement before the Magistrate
(page 7, 1, 43), and he identified Dilla Singh in the presence of Mr.
Lambert (page 281, 1, 3). Dilla Singh has stated that the identification
took place on the very day of his return from Simla (page 132, 1, 55),
where he was taken prior to Bibhuti’s arrest. Sucha Singh visited the
lines with Pingley, Kartar Singh, and a Bengali, about the 8 th of
February, and met Dilla Singh at a little distance from the barracks
(page 156, 1, 11). He picked Dilla Singh out a parade of men of the 7th
and 11th Rajputs as the sepoy whom he had met in Benares (page 265,
1, 33). In this court he insisted that Dharam Singh accused was the
sepoy whom he met and whom he identified on 2nd April. This was an
obvious misstatement and on a par with the conduct of another Lahore
approver Mula Singh, who after identifying Sachindra at Lahore on 7th
July, (page 153, line 4), deposed in this court that the identification
was a mistake (page 154, 1, 18). The Lahore approvers have gone back
on their statements either through fear of the Bengali anarchists or
through sympathy with a cause which they have only nominally
renounced. They know that the pardon which was granted them at Lahore
is not likely to be forfeited because of any falsehood they may tell here
where their evidence is merely subsidiary, and they are taking advantage
of the fact. Dilla Singh is not clever and could not have invented the
story which he has deposed to, or remembered it if he had been tutored
to repeat it. Very likely he has not revealed all the facts and his capacity
to identify the Bengalis whom he met may be doubted on account of
the deficiency of his intelligence. For these reasons, he may not be
considered a reliable witness, on whose evidence a conviction may be
based, but his complicity with the conspirators is amply proved and
Bibhuti’s testimony regarding Dilla Singh’s part in the conspiracy is
satisfactorily supported.
V. Mani Lal’s visit to Delhi, Lahore and Kharwa.
Some of the facts corroborating Mani Lal’s accounts of these visits
have been referred to in the narrative portion of the judgment. As regards
Delhi the evidence of Rewa Shankar and his brother combined with the
384 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
fact that Mani Lal was first traced through the finding of one of his
advertisements at Rewa Shankar’s eating house is particularly strong.
Owing to the fact that Mani Lal went to Hardwar to bathe at the new
moon in March, the prosecution was able to corroborate even the exact
time of his visit. Mani Lal was identified in presence of Mr. Hadow and
the District Magistrate of Delhi by seven witnesses who had seen him at
Delhi, including Rewa Shankar and the approver Ram Nath. Two
respectable witnesses, Ghanshyam Das and Bisheshar Nath (p. 193) prove
that while at Delhi during the February visit Mani Lal was taken for a
drive in the carriage of the former at the instance of Ram Nath. This is
an incident which Ram Nath forgot to mention though he had mentioned
it to the Magistrate and it supports the association between Mani Lal and
Ram Nath. The prosecution has proved by independent evidence not
only Mani Lal’s own presence at Delhi in the middle of March, but also
the fact that he was accompanied by the accused Partab Singh. Ram
Nath, Shankar Lal and three other witnesses, including Rewa Shankar,
identified Partab Singh in presence of the Additional District Magistrate
and of Mr. Hadow, and the genuineness of these identifications is beyond
question. As we have already remarked, Mani Lal’s account of his dealings
with the conspirators at Delhi is utterly unlike the kind of thing we might
expect from witnesses giving evidence to please the police. A striking
instance in addition to those already given is his statement that when
Rash Behari commissioned him to go to Mooltan in readiness for the
expected rebellion he specially charged him to take care of the women
and children. What police officer would have dreamt of attributing to
Rash Behari such a speech as this?
In support of the Lahore visit we have the evidence of Inspector
Khan Ahmad Khan (p. 247) who proves the identification by Mani Lal
of the Lahore approver Amar Singh and his pointing out the Bharat hotel
where he stayed and a house at Gwalmandi where he met Rash Behari.
This house was raided by the police within a week after Mani Lal’s visit
and tri-coloured flags, non-conducting pliers, revolutionary pamphlets
and other incriminating articles were found there.
That Mani Lal visited Kharwa and that he must have been inside
the Rao Sahib’s palace there is placed beyond doubt by the evidence of
Mr. Hollins (p. 259). Mani Lal was not only able to point out in a
manner absolutely convincing the places which he had visited and in
some instances to describe them before taking Mr. Hollins to show them
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 385
to him, but also both identified and was identified by some of the Raja’s
servants including in particular a boy servant who is specially referred to
in his narrative. The identification was so managed as to preclude any
possible doubt of its genuineness. Mani Lal was left at Beawar 12 miles
from Kharwa and Mr. Hollins arrived there from Kharwa in advance of
the witnesses.
The defence finally decided not to dispute the fact of Mani Lal
visiting Kharwa but contended that there was nothing beyond Mani Lal
own testimony to prove the object of this visit and that it was quite
possible he might have come there simply on a business errand to sell
Benares wares. Stress is laid on the fact that he says he made the Raja a
present of a silk handkerchief on the occasion of his second visit. Even if
it were true that the corroborative evidence only to the fact of the visit
we might find it difficult to believe that Mani Lal’s vivid narrative was
not that of an eye-witness. But it is only true to this extent that there is no
direct corroboration by persons unconnected with the conspiracy. The
only persons who could furnish such corroboration would be the servants
of the Raja employed in the palace and seeing that the Rao Sahib was
himself in the dock during the earlier portion of the proceedings it is
hardly likely that his own servants would come forward to incriminate
him. It is however going too far to say that there is no corroboration. An
account of the second visit, in which Mani Lal was accompanied by
Damodar Sarup, is given by the latter in his confession which is certainly
genuine so far as it goes. The arrangements made beforehand for this
visit are mentioned in the narrative of Bibhuti (page 12, from line 12)
which is admitted by the defence to have been made without access,
except for any stray details gathered though Babu Ram before his arrest,
to what Mani Lal had said, while Mani Lal’s departure for and return
from Kharwa on the first occasion are mentioned by Ram Nath.
VI. Distribution of seditious leaflets.
The account given by Bibhuti (p.3) and Mani Lal (p. 42) of the
distribution of Liberty and Swadhin Bharat leaflets by hand on 29th
November, 1913, at various schools and institutions is corroborated by
the following witness who recovered copies of the leaflets and recognizing
their seditious character sent them to the District Magistrate:-
(1) The Secretary of the Arya Sumaj, P. W. 46.
(2) The chaukidar and the headmaster of the Harish Chandra High
386 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
School, P. W. 50 and 47.
(3) The honorary joint secretary of the Central Hindu College, P.
W. 112.
These leaflets, e.g., Ex. 9, are of a frankly revolutionary character
and advocate open war for the extermination of Europeans.
There is also ample evidence to prove the distribution of leaflets
by post which was a constant feature of the revolutionary propaganda
carried on by the accused. A number of envelopes addressed by Bibhuti
and sent to other stations to be posted (Ex. 19) have been put in by the
police and identified by him. The evidence of Mr. Scott O’Connor who
arrested Bibhuti and Sachindra leaves little doubt that they were engaged
in preparing such leaflets for the post at the time of their arrest. Writing
materials, Liberty and Swadhin leaflets and a list of names and addresses
were spread out in front of them at the time. The concluding portion of
the list of names found on this occasion is stated by Bibhuti to be in the
handwriting of the accused Damodar and except as to two of the names
this was admitted by Damodar’s brother-in-law who was called as a defence
witness (p. 382). Another list of names, Ex. 34, was found at the arrest
of Jitendra and Kalipado (evidence of Mr. Scott O’Connor, p. 267).
This list bore the heading Muradpur P. Q., Bankipur, where the accused
Bankim was employed, and Bankim’s brother when shown the heading
and the first two lines of the list in cross examination (the rest of the list
being covered up) admitted the handwriting (p. 353 of the record).
VII. Bibbuti’s visit to Chundernagore and Calcutta in May, 1915
Bibhuti’s visit to Chundarnagore and Calcutta in May, 1915, in
company with Damodar Sarup is strikingly confirmed by the other
evidence adduced by the prosecution. The portion of the evidence dealing
with Calcutta and with the interview with Rash Behari there will be
reviewed in the portion of the judgement dealing with Sachindra and
Girja Babu whom it specially concerns. The corroboration proving his
stopping at Chandernagore on the way down is even more striking. Bibhuti
has stated both here and before the Magistrate that he and his companions
stopped at the house of one Suresh Babu in the quarter of Chandernagore
known as Futtuk Gore (Photok Gora) and that this Suresh Babu was a
member of the conspiracy. After his statement to the Magistrate Bibhuti
was taken to Chandernagore and asked to point out the house. He was
driven down the street which he pointed out as that where the house was
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 387
situated inside a closed gharry with a police officer, and from inside the (5) Tripura Bhairavi house owned by Mt. Biswa Mohini (P.W.
closed shutters he pointed out a house which was then occupied by Naresh 26).
Chandra Sen (Naresh Babu) the brother of Sirish Chandra Sen (Suresh (6) Lalta Ghat house owned by Narsingh Das (P.W. 21).
Babu, deceased). The house was then raided and a perfect armoury of (7) Another house close to No. 6 belonging to the same owner.
weapons was found inside it (vide the search list. Ex.173). Among the (8) Harar Bagh house under the control of Madho Chandra (P.W.
articles found were a 450 six chambered revolver and a tin of cartridges 43).
for the same, a breach loading rifle, a double barreled 500 Express rifle, (9) Pande Hauli house owned by Nibaran Chandra (P. W. 16).
a double barreled gun, seventeen daggers, a number of cartridges and a (10) Pande Hauli house belonging to Mt. Pramoda Mai (P.W. 29).
packet of gunpowder and several Swadhin Bharat and Liberty leaflets. The evidence as to the first two need not be discussed as it has
The fact that there is an Arms Act in force in Chandernagore has been already been considered in connection with the explosion incident. The
proved by the production of a copy of the Act certified under the seal of following table will indicate the details on which the witness as specified
the Governor. The important point is that the four officers who have support the approvers testimony under this head.
been called in connexion with this identification and search all swear that H. No. Name of Period of Witness and his References to
to the best of their knowledge this particular house had never been on the tenant or occupation connection with page of the
list. occupant. the house printed record.
previously suspected, and as two of them had been specially employed in or occupant.
watching house of political suspects in Chandernagore, they are in a 3 Rash Behari Portions of P.W. 28 landlady P. 7-28
position to know. The odds against Bibhuti, if he were pointing out a Dec., 1914, P. 8-11 and 12.
house at random to try and support a story which was not true happening and Jan., 1915. P. 151.
3 Rashupati and Portions of March Ditto P. 10-7 and 8.
to hit on a house containing this very remarkable collection of weapons Damodar. and April, 1916. P. 151.
and leaflets are beyond calculation, and we regard this discovery as one 4 Rash Behari as First week of 1 P.W. 17 owner’s P. 11-4.
Bibhuti’s guest. March, 1915. servant. P. 145.
of the most powerful pieces of corroboration in the whole course of the
2 P.W. 18 shaved P. 11-23 and 24.
proceedings. If the house had been already under suspicion is might be Rash Behari. P.140, paragraph 1.
argued that one of the police officers had contrived to inform Bibhuti of 5 Rash Behari allas 2nd and 3rd week 1. P.W. 26 landlady. P. 11-30 and
52 .
the fact but the evidence before us makes it practically certain that this Surendro (rented March, 1915. 2. P.W.27 cotenant. P. 150, paragraph 1.
house was not known to the police till Bibhuti pointed it out. by Bibhuti alias P. 150 last two
Haripado). paragraphs.
6 Babu Ram 12th February to 1. P.W. 21 owner. P. 11-24 and 25.
VIII. Houses occupied by conspirators in Benares
The eighth material point on which Bibhuti’s evidence stands 21st or 22nd April, 2. P.W.23 cotenant. P. 148-3 to 14.
corroborated by independent testimony, relates to the renting or 191 5. P. 149, paragraph 1.
7 Vinayak Rao 25th February to P.W. 21 owner. P. 11-24 and 25.
occupation of different houses by himself, or his fellow conspirators.
The following list gives the houses arranged in the chronological order 11th March, 1915. P. 148-15 to 22.
of their occupation:— 8 Vinayak Rao 10th March, 1915. P.W. 43 owner’s P. 11-47 to 49.
(rented by manager. P. 11-54 and 55.
(1) Misri Pokhra house owned by Rai Mani Dasi (P.W. 12). Damodar) P. 168, paragraph 1.
(2) Kedar Ghat house owned by Ganesh Chandra Bapuli (P.W. P. 300-8 to 11.
9 Damodar Portions of Chait P.W. 16 owner. P. 14-36 to 41.
20).
and Baisakh last. P. 146.
(3) Harish Chandra Ghat house owned by Mt. Manmohini (P.W. 10 Sachin and June, 1915 P.W. 29 landlady. P. 16-1 to 5.
28) Bibhuti P. 152.
(4) Munshi Ghat house. The approver pointed out each of these houses, after his arrest to Inspr. Mukerji.

388 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 389
IX. The Young Men’s Association
There is less evidence to support Bibhuti’s statement regarding the
nature and aims of the Y. M. A. than of any other part of his evidence
and indeed in some cases such evidence as is available tends rather to
contradict than to corroborate him. But it is to be remembered in this
connexion that it is very difficult for the prosecution to get evidence as
to what went on in the society such as this. No member of it is likely to
admit unless compelled to do that it was of a seditious character during
the time that he belonged to it. Assuming that the prosecution case
regarding the character of the association is correct we may expect to
find that those members who are induced to come forward to give evidence
regarding it will do so with a certain amount of reserve. Indeed as to one
of the very points on which the want of corroboration is most strongly
insisted upon, the fact that at the annual Kali Puja ceremony the sacrifice
of a white pumpkin (a usual feature of the Puja) was accompanied by a
special vow for the extermination of the white race, we notice that the
two witnesses called by the prosecution, Debbi Narain Mukerji and
Hiranmoy, are careful to say that they never attended the actual Puja
ceremony, and give reasons, correct or otherwise, for not having done
so. The fact of the principal of the Central Hindu College having been
invited on two occasions to attend the ceremony (though he never actually
went) is no doubt a strong argument against there having been anything
improper in it, but as the evidence is that on the occasion of the Puja a
public meeting was held in a hall downstairs while the actual ceremony
took place in an upper room, it is possible the it was to the former only
that outside visitors were admitted. At any rate we have no witness called
for the defence whose evidence we could implicitly accept to prove that
Bibhuti’s account of what took place is a false one. On two other matters
as to which the evidence of Bibhuti has been called in question, namely,
the existence of an inner circle and the perverted teaching of the Gita at
the moral class, we think that he is right. It has been suggested that the
latter feature was copied from previous sedition cases in which the Gita
has been made use of to give support to anarchical doctrines, but when
Bibhuti described the lectures which he attended and proceeded when
challenged to quote slokas and to give his own translation of them, we
could not help feeling that he was describing an actual experience. Deb
Narain (p. 117) having been at one time moral instructor, would of
course not likely to say that any seditious teaching was given in his time,
390 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
but Hiranmoy (p. 123-35) does say that at these classes the Gita teaching
was followed by seditious lectures inciting them to follow the example
of the Bengal anarchists. It seems probable that these seditious lectures
and Bibhuti’s account of the interpretation of the Gita in a seditious
sense are two different ways of describing the same thing. For reasons
which will sufficiently appear from a perusal of their cross-examination
(p. 358-26 and p. 377 footnote) we are unable to attach any value to the
statements of Chunni Lal Karmakar and Jagdish Prasanno Mukerji who
were called by the defence to prove that the Y. M. A. was a purely non-
political society devoted solely to the moral and physical training of its
members. Deb Narain in re-examination stated that there was nothing
objectionable in the rules of the association but he had to admit that his
father sent him away to Calcutta in order to remove him its influence (p.
116-38). Except in its bearing on the reliability of Bibhuti’s evidence
this question of the Y. M. A. is however of but little importance for the
purposes of the present trial. Sachindra, Bibhuti, and most of the members
of the conspiracy seceded from it at the close of 1912 and were not members
of it during the period to which the evidence before us specially relates.
X. Miscellaneous.
Besides the points mentioned above there is a mass of miscellaneous
corroboration, identification of persons and places, incidents too small
for special mention, and so on. Parts of this corroboration we must pass
over in silence. One point deserves to be noticed in this connexion. Bibhuti
and at least two of the accused were students in schools and one of the
accused was a teacher, but in no instance do the attendance registers
show them to have been at school at a time when the evidence requires
their presence elsewhere. This is a very severe test of the truth of the
evidence. As regards Bibhuti himself the register furnishes remarkable
corroboration of his account of his movements after the explosion. His
evidence is that shortly after the explosion he got a telegram that his
father was ill and went away to his village in Bengal where he remained
about twenty days and that five or six days after his return to Benares he
heard that his father was dead and went away again to perform the funeral
ceremonies. The date of his father’s death was 30th Aghan (Bengali
calendar) corresponding to 16th December, 1914. Now the register shows
that he was absent from school on the important 18th November and was
continuously absent from that date till 7th December inclusive. This would
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 391
cover his visit to his father during the illness of the latter. He was again
absent from 16th December, only a week after his return, until after the
Christmas holidays. He was also absent from school on 20th and 21st
Feb., 1915, the latter date being a Sunday. His absence on the 20th
corresponds to the time of his visit to Dinapore, for which he may have
left on the night of the 19th.
It transpired in evidence that Mani Lal was employed to write out
the accounts of a Nepalese firm in Benares. As however the rough account
which was prepared at the time of each transaction was written by the
heads of the firm themselves and the formal bahi in Mani Lal’s hand
might not be written up till many days afterwards, the dates of his presence
in and absence from Benares could not be checked by this means. A very
important post-card has however been put in written by one of the heads
of the firm to his brother at Calcutta, dated she 14th February, 1915, and
bearing a postmark of that date stating that Mani Lal had absented himself
and sent a note to say that his father was ill and that he had not completed
the accounts of two months earlier. This is most important as February
14 was the very date on which Mani Lal left Benares for Lahore in
company with Vinayak Rao and the eighteen bombs. The same witness
who puts in the post-card, Mani Lal’s employer, Ram Shankar Lal,
deposes that Mani Lal returned to his work some time before the Holi
(the Holi was on 1st March) and that he again took a month’s leave
before the middle of March and at the end of that time returned to work
for one day only and then left for good. Compare this evidence with the
time table of Mani Lal’s movements given in the narrative portion of the
judgement and it will be seen that it is consistent with every statement
which Mani Lal has made.
There is one incident as to which the corroborative evidence might
seem rather to rebut than to support Bibhuti’s evidence and this is with
reference to the presence of the accused Nalini at Benares on the night of
21st February, 1915. Bibhuti has deposed that to Nalini had been assigned
the duty of stirring up the troops at Jubbulpore, that he did visit Jubbulpore
for the purpose, and that he saw him after his return on the afternoon or
evening of 21st February. That Bibhuti did go to Jubbulpore and was
there on Feb. 20 is an admitted fact. According, however, to the evidence
of the witness S. B. Banerji, P. W. 68, the Munsarim of the Judge’s
Court of Jubbulpore, Nalini could not have left Jubbulpore for Benares
earlier than the 8.30 a.m. train on the 21st. In that case the earliest time
392 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
at which he could have reached Benares was 9.51 p.m. which is
inconsistent with Bibhuti’s statement that Nalini accompanied him to the
maidan on the evening of Feb., 21 in anticipation of the proposed rising.
Bibhuti’s account is that they gave up hope and returned home about 10
p.m.
If we accepted this evidence at its face value it does not necessarily
discredit Bibhuti’s accounts of the rising. The fact that amongst six or
seven persons present he included one who really did not return till later
would merely show that his memory is not in this instance as good as in
other respects we have found it. In our opinion however there are
substantial grounds for suspecting the genuineness of the Munsarim’s
story. We felt this strongly when his evidence was first given and
subsequent reflection has done nothing to remove the impression. His
account is that when he returned from tour about 11p.m. on 20th February,
he found Nalini sleeping in the outside room of the house and was given
to understand that he had come there having quarreled with his parents
and was going on to Bombay. He had no bedding and practically no
luggage. He had been admitted on a representation that he was a friend
of witness’s son-in-law, a student at Benares, which witness subsequently
discovered not to be the truth. Witness advised him to return home and
he left Jubbulpore by the 8-30 a.m. train on the 21st.
Three things specially strike us with regard to this witness—
(1) The eagerness he showed to produce his travelling allowance
bill, which the prosecution had never asked for, in support of
his story. This was unnatural if he was merely relating an
incident which occurred at his house and which happened to
be material to the prosecution but in which he himself was in
no way concerned. On the other hand one can understand his
anxiety, if his story is a crooked one to put in documentary
evidence in support of the one point in it which is absolutely
“pakka.”
(2) It does not seem to us very probable that in the Munsarim’s
absence the members of his family would have taken into the
house a total stranger arriving with nothing but a dhoti, an
angochha and a lota, and telling a cock and bull story about a
student friendship between him and Manmatha.
(3) The story told by Nalini to explain his going to Jubbulpore is
on the face of it a lie. If he had run away after quarrelling
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 393
 with his mother he would be likely to go either to his brother
at Lucknow, where he was actually found at the time of his
arrest or to his native country, Bengal. It is most unlikely that
he would have been away to Bombay where he does not profess
to have any friend and where he would be out of his element,
nor is it likely that he would have run off without any luggage
or any money. The fact that the Munsarim goes out of his way
to support this story goes far to show that he is a false witness.
The prosecution felt some difficulty in asking the court to discredit
this witness because they had previously called him to Allahabad to
identify Nalini and he had done so, but though the explanation of this
can only be conjectural, we do not think that it present any serious
difficulty. The connexion between the Banerji family and Nalini may be
much closer than the witness has admitted. Indeed accused himself gives
the lie to the witness’s statement that accused was not acquainted with
the Munsarim’s son-in-law, Manmatha. It may be that some member of
the Munsarim’s family was Nalini’s accomplice, and this is the
Munsarim’s motive for trying to prove that the object of Nalini’s visit
was an innocent one. There is also a strong Sanyal interest at Jubbulpore
as we know from the defence evidence produced by Jitendra. We are
convinced that the Munsarim’s story is not a straightforward one and we
therefore think it highly probable that Nalini left Jubbulpore by the 10.30
p.m. train on the night of the 20th, in which case it is quite possible that
he may have left the Munsarim at Jubbulpore station. If he travelled by
this train he would reach Allahabad in plenty of time to have been present
on the maidan on the evening of the 21st.
Accused says that his ticket was taken to Benares Cantonment at
the Jubbulpore city booking office but that he changed to the Oudh and
Rohilkhand Railway at Allahabad and did not give up his ticket on
completing his journey. We have of course no guarantee that these
statements are correct, but we have obtained evidence as to the issue of
tickets at the Jubbulpore city booking office and we find that one ticket
was issued to Benares Cantonment on 20th February and one on 21st
February. The evidence is therefore consistent with his having travelled
on either date. It is perhaps rather less likely that the ticket should have
been taken at the city office instead of at railway station if accused was
going by as early a train as 8.30 a.m. than if he intended to travel by the
night train. Bibhuti when confronted with the fact that the Munsarim had
394 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
contradicted his evidence on oath was at first inclined to weaken and say
that he might have made a mistake, but when afterwards pressed to say
whether he himself in his own mind still believed that Nalini was present,
replied that he did. “If you ask what is my mind”, was his exact expression
which has been shortened down in the memorandum of evidence (p.
300-21), “it is that he was there”.
Putting aside the question of the date of Nalini’s return the very
fact of Nalini making this hurried visit to Jubbulpore just before the date
of the rising is itself a strong corroboration of Bibhuti’s testimony. If we
reject as a lie, as we can have no hesitation in doing, Nalini’s own account
of the reason for his visit, the natural inference is that the true reason is
that which Bibhuti has given.
Mani Lal’s evidence has been attacked chiefly on the ground that
he gives the date on which the proposed date of the rising was changed as
February 16th whereas Amar Singh one of the Lahore approvers has stated
in the Lahore case that the change was made on the 18th (vide Amar
Singh’s cross-examination page 158). The point is undoubtedly important
since Mani Lal has been very precise as to date and if the change of date
was not made till 18th he must according to his own account have been at
Kharwa when it took place. It is at the same time true that even if Mani
Lal were proved to have made a false statement as to when he heard of
the change of date there would still remain ample evidence to prove the
fact of his visit to Lahore, Delhi and Kharwa. Mani Lal was not cross-
examined at all as to the discrepancy, nor was Amar Singh confronted
with his Lahore evidence although Mani Lal had been examined a full
month before Amar Singh was called. But at a late stage of the case just
before the final arguments commenced we were pressed to bring Amar
Singh’s statement on the record. This under the provisions of the Evidence
Act we could not do without recalling Amar Singh from the Punjab, so
at the request of both the prosecution and the defence we have examined
a copy of Amar Singh’s evidence in the Lahore case to see whether there
was anything in it to make it necessary for us to adjourn the trial in order
to recall him. We find that there is no such necessity and that there is
nothing in this evidence even if it was formally brought on the record
which would induce us to discredit Mani Lal. The only meeting on Feb.
16 which Amar Singh is said to have attended was one at which the
police spy was present and at which therefore nothing could be said
about the change of date, while he appears by his own account to have
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 395
been absent from Lahore on Feb. 17; so that it is quite possible that he
may not have heard about the change of date till the 18th. There are two
considerations which strongly support Mani Lal’s version. The first is
that the meeting of the spy with the police officer at the railway station
which led to the change of plan being affected undoubtedly took place
on the 16th and must have been reported to Rash Behari on the same date,
as Mani Lal says it was. The second point is that if the change had not
been made till the 18th there would have been no time to let even the
places in the Punjab know of the change and the whole plan must have
been doomed to failure from the start.
We have not overlooked the fact that the change of the date was not
mentioned in Mani Lal’s first statement to the police. There are in fact
two important omissions in that statement, but in each case there is so
strong a reason for the omission being made that they rather strengthen
than weaken Mani Lal’s evidence. Until he was granted a pardon Mani
Lal said not a word about Babu Ram nor did he mention the change in
the date of the rising. The reason for the first omission has been made
clear by the evidence of Mr. Paghey. Babu Ram was a friend of Mani
Lal and it was Mani Lal who had induced him to join the movement.
When Mani Lal was promised a pardon and asked if there was anything
he had omitted to disclose he said that there was a poor boy whom he had
introduced to the society and who had acted as store-keeper, but he would
only reveal his name if he was given an assurance that the boy would not
be prosecuted. Such an assurance was given and forms the reason why
Babu Ram has been placed in the witness-box instead of in the dock. The
reason for the other omission is self-evident. The whole tenor of Mani
Lal’s evidence shows him to be a coward at heart. He had already declined
a commission to shoot Mr. Petrie because he was too timid to undertake
it. The task of going to Mooltan and taking part in the expected
insurrection of the regiment there was one very little to his liking, and
accounts for the readiness with which he grasped at the opportunity of
going to Kharwa instead. His action in taking refuge in a railway train
out of reach of danger during the critical date of the revolution was
conduct of which he could hardly help being ashamed. By saying nothing
of the change of date he avoided betraying his own cowardice. When
however he was given a pardon on condition of disclosing the whole
truth his very facts would urge him not to keeps back so important a fact,
the concealment of which might lead to his pardon being withdrawn.
396 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Almost the only other point on which Mani Lal’s evidence has
been seriously criticized is his omission to mention Bibhuti by name in
his statement to the Magistrate, and the fact that the description given of
him was inaccurate. We have come across too many instances of inaccurate
description in our experience, and even in present proceedings to attach
much importance to minor errors. The description of Bibhuti given by
Mani Lal to the Magistrate was as follows:—
“The Bengali had large eyes, was very stout and was
short; he was fair complexioned, he lives near Panda
Ghat but I do not know where his house is”.
Elsewhere he refers to him as ‘fat Bengali’. The only two items in
the above description which do not tally are the shortness and the fair
complexion. Bibhuti is above the average height and is rather dark than
fair. The other items agree, Bibhuti is still very stout and was probably
still stouter before his arrest, which might have made him seem shorter
than he was and he has a way of opening his eyes very wide when surprised
or when he suddenly comprehends something which has been puzzling
him, which is one of his most striking characteristics. The fair complexion
is certainly a difficulty but one of the witnesses said that Bibhuti seemed
fairer than he was now while curiously enough one of the defence witnesses
has made a similar statement regarding Sachin. It is at least a commonly
held belief the just as anxiety and worry makes Europeans pale it tends to
give the Indian complexion a darker tint than is natural to it. In any case
it is futile to urge that Mani Lal did not know Bibhuti in view of the fact
that he recognized him in the group photograph, Ex 8, before he could
possibly have seen Bibhuti after the latter’s arrest.
The result of our analysis has been to establish Bibhuti and Mani
Lal as honest and truthful witnesses whose testimony we ought not to
discredit merely on the ground of their being approvers. The more we
have tested their evidence the more trustworthy we have found it. We
have not even a single instance in Mani Lal’s evidence in which he can
be shown to have lied. There may be in Bibhuti’s evidence some instance
of exaggeration in regard to the Y. M. A., with he ceased to be directly
connected at the close of 1912, and some of his answers in cross-
examination (p. 27) as to how he knew who the members of the inner
circle were can hardly be accepted. But apart from this it would be hard
to point out any statement of fact made by him as to which it can be
fairly said “This must be a lie”. There are, as we have pointed out, some
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 397
erroneous statements, especially as to the time of particular events, but
they are such as are more reasonably explained by defect of memory
than by deliberate falsehood, and the number of such statements in a
deposition covering 40 printed pages is remarkably small and justifies
the reliance placed by the prosecution on his evidence.
We may note also that Bibhuti is far from being the despicable
character that one is accustomed to associate with the term approver. He
is even now only about twenty years of age and he seems to have joined
the revolutionary movement with a sincere conviction that he was
promoting the welfare of his country by so doing. He maintained this
opinion for a time even after his arrest, and, as Inspector Mukerji has
deposed when approached by the latter he turned round on the police
officers and asked them what they were doing for the good of their
country. It was probably in part at least the influence of his mother and
grandmother which induced him to change sides and disclose what he
knew. Having however decided to do this he did it with characteristic
thoroughness, and his evidence is by far the best and completest account
we have of the organization and aims of the conspirators at Benares.
Ram Nath’s evidence deals chiefly with the Delhi accused, Lachhmi
Narain and Ganeshi Lal, and with Sachin, Partab and Damodar. It agrees
with Mani Lal’s in numerous details in a way which can hardly be due to
collusion and there is a general though not complete agreement between
it and the evidence of Shankar Lal. Shankar Lal was the earliest of the
approvers to be examined and it was enquires-based on his statement
which led to the discovery of Mani Lal’s advertisements at Rewa Shankar’s
eating-house and thus furnished the clue which led to Mani Lal’s arrest.
There is also independent corroboration of several incidents in Ram Nath’s
statement, e.g.—
1. His taking to the Dayal Washing Factory on March 28th, a
coat of Pingley’s and three articles of clothing belonging to
Sachindra and Partab which had been left with Ram Nath to
be washed. In consequence of Ram Nath’s statement the books
of the factory were examined and an entry of the clothes was
found with Ram Nath as the name of the person who brought
them. (Vide p. w. 55, p. 188).
2. The visit of Sachindra and Partab to Delhi on March 26th, 1915.
Witness did not know their names and was under the impression
that they were N. N. Banerji and Hiranmoy. There is no doubt
398 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
however that Sachindra and Partab were the men really referred
to. The description of the supposed Hiranmoy could not possibly
apply to the real Hiranmoy, who moreover, had never visited
Delhi, and there is also the mention of his wearing spectacles
which Partab does and Hiranmoy does not. Witnesses have been
called who have identified Sachindra and Partab as occupying
the house where Ram Nath says they were lodged.
Both Ram Nath and Shankar Lal independently point out to Mr.
Hadow the places mentioned in their statements (p. 217) and their
agreement in describing the course they took in distributing leaflets shows
the genuineness of their story. Ram Nath was practicing as a vaid in
Delhi and there can be no doubt that his dispensary was used as a meeting
place by the conspirators. The visit of Damodar to this dispensary is
established by his having on one occasion helped to address labels for
Ram Nath, and some of the bottles with labels in his handwriting have
been produced in court. The evidence before us is amply sufficient to
establish the general truthfulness of Ram Nath’s story. Even Shankar
Lal, though as we have stated is the least reliable of the approvers, is by
no means to be considered a false witness. He agrees in many points with
the other approvers and his account of his visit to Meerut with Pingley,
which is the most distinctive feature of his evidence, is entirely genuine.
We have not however felt able to rely on his evidence where it is
uncorroborated both because his recollection is often very confused and
because he showed in one or two instances a disposition to extenuate his
own share in the conspiracy. We cannot for instance accept his statement
that he had no knowledge of the conspiracy until February, 1915.
In concluding this portion of the Judgment we desire to express our
sense of the thoroughness and care with which the case has been worked
out by Mr. Sands. The labour involved must have been enormous, but
no detail has been neglected. As Inspector Mukerji has been specially
singled out as an object of attack it is only due to him to say that he
comes out of the case with absolutely clean hands. He appears to have
been Mr. Sand’s right man throughout the enquiry and is entitled to a
share in the credit for the successful working out of the case. An excellent
foundation was laid for the case by Mr. Scott ‘O’ Connor’s action in
recording Bibhuti’s first statement himself instead of leaving this work
to a subordinate, thus eliminating the possibility of tutoring. The
suggestion that Inspector Mukerji obtained private access to Bibhuti while
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 399
his statement was being recorded broke down on the discovery that the
supposed special permit alleged to have been obtained by Inspector Mukerji
was in fact an order to the Superintendent of the Jail for the transfer of
Bibhuti to the District Jail and his being lodged in a separate cell there
(Ex. 183).
We desire also to convey our thanks to the Superintendent,
Government Press, for the promptness and efficiency with which the
printing of the record has been carried out.
PART III
ACCUSED
ANNADA
This accused was arrested in the Faridpur district on 29th September
last and brought here via Calcutta on 4th October. His confession was
recorded by the Joint Magistrate here on 5th and 6th October. Bibhuti,
Mani Lal and Hiranmoy depose to his leaving the Y.M.A. with Sachin
and there is their additional testimony to connect him with the subsequent
activities of the extremist party here. When leaflets were distributed and
pasted at the end of 1913, Bibhuti was ill and heard of Annada’s part in
the proceedings from Sachin at a meeting of the conspirators. Hiranmoy
has deposed that Annada actually accompanied him when leaflets were
pasted on walls at ghats and temples. Mani Lal states that Sachin, Annada
and he wrote several addresses of professors and students of various
colleges on envelopes in order to distribute leaflets to them. Both Bibhuti
and Hiranmoy speak of Annada’s visits to Rash Behari at the Misri Pokhra
house and his complicity in the conspiracy is directly proved by his
presence at a meeting, where Rash Behari showed bombs and arms to the
conspirators and explained their use and how to fit the bombs and caps
together. A description of this meeting is given by Bibhuti at page 5 of
the printed record. Annada was not present at the meeting of January,
1915, at the Harish Chandra Ghat house, where Rash Behari gave out
the dispositions preparatory to a revolution. Bibhuti, however, has deposed
that Rash Behari assigned a part to Annada and proposed to keep him and
Kalipado as reserves in Benares. After the departure of Rash Behari,
Bibhuti sent Annada a ten-rupee note out of the organization money to
400 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
an address at Murat, in the Faridpur district. The money was sent in a
registered cover to the address of Prashanto Kumar Sen; the letter was
despatched from Bengali Tola post office on 14th May, and a postcard,
Ex. 139, written by Annada from Calcutta to Prashanto at Murat and
found on search of Prashanto’s house proved the receipt of the money by
Annada. This postcard was posted at Calcutta on 22nd May, a date on
which Sachin was in Calcutta. After this evidence, the futility of a denial
of the receipt of the money was appreciated by Annada and he put forward
the explanation that the money was sent to him in payment of a debt. His
brother Uma Charan deposed that he gave a loan of Rs. 15 to Bibhuti.
The explanation is very unconvincing when the attendant circumstances
are considered. Uma Charan stated that Annada had gone to Murat to
recover interest on a loan from Prashanto. If so, his requesting Bibhuti
to address his letter to Prashanto and his expecting part payment of a
loan, while he was on a casual visit at Murat, appear very strange. The
natural course would have been to make payments to his brother Uma
Charan, at whose house the loan is alleged to have been made. Annada
opening the envelope addressed to Prashanto and leaving Murat without
waiting for Prashanto’s return from a village lend weight to the
supposition that Annada was wanted by Sachin at Calcutta and left Murat
as soon as he received money for his expenses from the Benares
organization. It may be noted that the postcard was found on 7th Sept.
and that, therefore, there can be no suspicion of Bibhuti’s statement of
6th August being fashioned on the basis thereof. Annada belonged to the
Chatra Hitaishini Society but it has not been proved to be a seditious
body. Ex. 70, Chatra Sakha, a magazine, was produced by S. I. Banerji
to indicate the character of the society. The contents of this magazine
remain unproved because the testimony of Girish Chandra Bhattacharji
on the subject is very vague. As regards the magazine Ex. 64, Deb Narain
recognized it as a magazine of this society, while S. I. Banerji’s
information was that the original, of which Ex. 64 is a copy, was issued
by the Y.M.A. The evidence regarding Annada’s complicity in the
conspiracy is very clear and we need not inquire into the preparations he
had received prior to the spread of seditious literature and the arrival of
Rash Behari in Benares.
The prosecution evidence noted so far is confirmed by the confession
of Annada recorded by the Joint Magistrate of Benares on 5th and 6th
October. Mr. Sands has stated that Annada’s statement was recorded by
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 401
the police as soon as Annada arrived in Benares on 4th Oct. Inspr. Mukerji
was deputed to record the statement at the house of the local S.P., where
Mr. Sands was staying, and Annada was brought. Inspr Mukerji recorded
three-fourths of the statement at once and the rest next morning at the
cantonment police station. There cannot be any truth in the accused’s
indictment that the statement was tutored to him by the Inspector because
there was little time in which Annada could be taught a long story to
such perfection as would enable him to repeat it before the Magistrate as
he did. Mr. Chatterji’s insinuations based on Mr. Corbett’s account of
his meeting Annada at Calcutta may be brushed aside. Mr. Corbett
deposed to taking notes of Annada statement at Calcutta, where Annada
stopped on his way to Benares but Annada himself does not allege that he
was coached up at Calcutta. Apparently he is clever enough to understand
that a story of tutoring by Bengal police men of a subject, peculiar to
Benares and of which they were not likely to have any knowledge, would
not be credited by any court of law. The confession of Annada is so full
of details and complete on the matters with which it deals that the only
argument possible to avoid its damaging effect on the defence was the
one advanced by Mr. Roy, pleader for the defence. He urged the
provisions of sec. 24, Evidence Act, and asked the Court to hold that the
confession was obtained under an inducement of pardon. To support
such an argument, a proposition to the effect that no accused person
would confess unless he was promised a pardon is too vague and sweeping.
A guilty person may make admissions in hopes of a pardon or of
consideration being shown to him by the prosecution in the matter of
charges brought against him. This is not sufficient to bring the confession
within the provisions of sec. 24, Evidence Act. There is not one single
circumstance that can lead the Court to suspect that inducement was
offered to Annada before his confession was obtained. The testimony of
the approvers Bibhuti and Mani Lal and of Hiranmoy, who has not a
higher status than that of an approver, is corroborated by Annada’s
confession and by the independent evidence in support of Bibhuti’s
statement that he sent organization money to Annada to go to Calcutta
from Murat. The charge under sec. 121A, I.P.C., is established: the
prisoner was a member of the conspiracy, whose object he knew was to
deprive the king of the sovereignty of British India. We convict him of
that offence and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
So far as the evidence before us goes his direct activities were confined to
402 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
the distribution of seditious literature.
2. — BANKIM CHANDRA MITRA
This accused was arrested in Patna on the 6th September, 1915, in
the house of Prof. Jadunath Sirkar. On 13th November, 1914, his lodgings
in the same house were searched in connection with the Raja Bazar bomb
case by S.I. Abdul Karim and a book “The life of Mazzini,” Ex 62, and
a notebook, Ex. 163, were found there. Bibhuti met him at the house of
Rash Behari at Misri Pokhra and he has further stated that when Bankim
left Benares he took with him Liberty and Swadhin Bharat leaflets given
to him by Rash Behari for distribution. When Bibhuti returned from
Calcutta after his interview with Rash Behari he got down at Bankipore
by previous instructions from Sachin to visit Bankim there, ask him how
far he was going on with the work and goad him to work more vigorously.
Bibhuti went to Prof. Sirkar’s house but Bankim was not there and the
persons in the house told him on inquiry that they did not know where he
was. Both Bibhuti and Hiranmoy have deposed that Bankim used to write
letters to Sachindra and enclose them in covers addressed to these
approvers. Ex. 06 is a letter addressed to Hiranmoy and intercepted by
the police after Hiranmoy’s arrest in the Raja Bazar bomb case. Ex. 34 is
a list of names found in a room inside a house at Ramapura in which
Jitendra and Kalipado accused were arrested by Mr. Scott O’Connor on
16th July. It is stated that the names are in the handwriting of Bankim.
When this evidence is examined in detail it affords convincing proof
of Bankim’s complicity in the conspiracy. As he is not a resident of this
province there is no evidence forthcoming of his acts in Bankipore in
furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy. In his statement Bankim
alleged that he had never met Bibhuti before this case was started; he was
however identified by Bibhuti on 23rd September last in the presence of
Mr. Hamilton. At that identification the accused persons were put in a
line with twenty others and there can be doubt as to the genuineness of
the identification. It was objected that Bankim happened to be the only
Bengali unknown to Bibhuti at the time, but we do not believe that a
Bengali could be picked out by his appearance when all the men who
were strangers to Bibhuti at the parade were similarly attired. It will be
seen from Mr. Hamilton’s evidence that Bibhuti picked men out by name
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 403
promptly and that he had no time for deliberation and elimination of
those who did not appear to him to be Bengalis. The accused has not
given any explanation of Bibhuti’s acquaintance with him and the denial
of such acquaintance raises a presumption that the meeting between the
two was not for an honest purpose. Bankim alleged that he was a friend
of Hiranmoy and wrote the letter, Ex. 66, to him as a friend. The letter
does not contain the name of the person to whom it is written is not
signed but there are enigmatic words therein which indicate that more is
desired to be conveyed than meets the eye. The letter declares that a
great golmal has taken place and that there is cause for fear and contains
a request that the addresses must not write or send anything to Bankim
for the time being. Knowing the relations between Bankim and Sachindra
the palpable meaning is that through some incident Bankim had been
frightened and did not desire to receive letters or seditious literature
from Sachin just at that time. The explanation of these words given by
Bankim and by his brother Surendra Nath Mitra is unconvincing. It was
stated that Hiranmoy wanted to send the return half of a ticket to Bankim
in order to enable Bankim to visit Hiranmoy’s house that Bankim’s brother
who is a ticket examiner on the E. I. Ry., read this letter and reprimanded
Bankim and that Bankim thereupon wrote this letter desiring Hiranmoy
not to send the return half ticket. If the matter were so simple there
would have been no necessity of using such cryptic words in the letter.
Hiranmoy deposed that he was not acquainted with Bankim and
considerable support is lent to this statement by the fact that Hiranmoy’s
full name and address are entered by Bankim in the note-book, Ex. 162,
found in his house. If Hiranmoy were really a great friend of Bankim, as
is pretended, a record of his full name and address would not have been
necessary to help Bankim to remember them. Bankim’s friendship with
Sachin is further evidenced by the fact that “The life of Mazzini” found
in Bankim’s possession belonged to Sachindra whose name with the date
June 1913 appears on the first page. Later on when dealing with Sachin
the importance of this book will be discussed and the certainty that the
notes were made by Sachin. Bankim explained that the book was given
to him by Hiranmoy and not by Sachin direct. As we believe, however,
that Bankim and Hiranmoy had not met it appears certain that the book
came into Bankim’s possession directly from Sachin. It may be noted
here that the same book was lent by Sachin to Mani Lal to read as a
preparation for revolutionary acts.
404 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
The next question to decide is whether Ex. 34 is in the
handwriting of Bankim. The defence witness, Prof. Jadunath Sirkar, is
of opinion that the handwriting is not that of Bankim but the testimony
of Bankim’s own brother Surendra Nath Mitra, is to the contrary. How
the statement came to be made in cross-examination may be quoted in
detail.
‘I know this handwriting (being shown the words Muradpur, P. O.
Bankipore, on Ex. 34 the rest of the exhibit being covered up). It appears
like Bankim’s handwriting. The first line of the Exhibit Sj. Sarat Mitra
appears to be in the same handwriting as the address. The second line
also appears to be in the same handwriting (the words shown are Trigura
Charan Mitra. Being then shown the whole of the first page of the exhibit
says) I do not think this is my brother’s hand-writing. (Witness adds):
Taking the whole page into consideration I do not think that it is his
handwriting.’
It is clear that the witness really believed the handwriting to be that
of his brother and stopped when he discovered from the blank expression
of his pleader and whispers among the other defence pleaders that he was
saying something contrary to his brother’s interests. A comparison of
this handwriting with that of Bankim’s admitted handwriting in Exs A-
15 to A-17 will show that the list is in Bankim’s handwriting. In addition
to this there is internal evidence that the list must have been supplied by
Bankim for the distribution of seditious literature in Bihar. Most of the
addresses are of Muradpur and Bankipore and likely to be known to
Bankim and not to Jitendra and Kalipado. Bankim’s brother Surendra
Nath Mitra first stated when questioned by Mr. Chatterji who did not
appear for Bankim that he did not know Tulshipado Moitra who was
arrested along with Jiten and Kalipado. The witness subsequently changed
his statement and said that Tulshipado’s father was a signaler at Moghal
Sarai, and that Bankim and Tulshipado were known to each other. This
evidence does not help the case of Bankim because the handwriting is not
alleged to be that of Tulshipado nor the contents to be such as would be
within his knowledge. Thus Bankim’s connection with Sachin, Jiten and
Kalipado is clearly proved as well as Bibhuti’s acquaintances with him.
So there is ample corroboration of Bibhuti’s statement that Bankim was
one of the conspirators and helped in the distribution of seditious literature
in Bihar. We hold him guilty of an offence under sec. 121A and sentence
him to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 405
 3. — DAMODAR SARUP ALIAS MASTERJI
This accused was arrested by Mr. Scott O’Connor, S. P., at the
house of the Collector during the night preceding the 3rd of July last.
Bibhuti mentions Damodar’s association with the conspirators first after
Rash Behari arrived in Benares at the commencement of 1914. Damodar
was one of those who frequented the Misri Pokhra house and was present
at the meeting of January 1915, when Rash Behari told the conspirators
that the time for a revolution had arrived and that Damodar was to be the
leader in Allahabad. Subsequently about 21st Feb. Damodar returned
from Allahabad and reported to Sachin that the army men whom he had
previously visited at Allahabad had been transferred and that he could
not approach the new regiment which had taken their place. In March he
was introduced by Bibhuti to Mani Lal under the orders of Rash Behari
and Mani Lal was ordered to take Damodar with him to Kharwa. On 16th
March the accused and Pingley joined Mani Lal and Partab Singh at
Delhi and the same night Mani Lal and the accused started for Kharwa
which they reached next morning. Mani Lal has described the visit to
Kharwa and the object thereof on pp. 49&50 of the printed record. For
the next move of this accused we must refer to the statements of the
approvers Ram Nath and Shankar Lal. He was back in Delhi on his
return from Kharwa on 20th March, and went to Aligarh. Ram Nath says
that Damodar went to Aligarh on hearing that Pingley had returned
disappointed from that place. The accused was back in Delhi on the 23rd
and had a conversation with Pingley at Ram Nath’s dispensary, when
Pingley asked him to bring the papers which he had promised to get
printed at Allahabad for distribution to the troops. We next hear of him
in Benares. Bibhuti says “I got from Damodar Seth the revolver which
Preonath took away and brought back. Damodar gave it to me with 22
cartridges on his return from Kharwa and said that the Rao Sahib of
Kharwa had given it to him. He also said the Rao Sahib had promised to
give another revolver which was then under repair.” According to Bibhuti
Damodar visited the Pande Hauli house which was rented by the
conspirators in April. In May he accompanied Bibhuti to Calcutta and
was present at the notable interview with Rash Behari over the post office
at Dhurumtollah. At that interview Damodar offered to got seditious
literature published at a press at Aligarh to which he said that he had
access. Thereupon Rash Behari ordered Bibhuti to pay Rs 60 to Damodar
406 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
to purchase types from Allahabad and Rs. 100 for family expenses.
Bibhuti says that this money was paid to Damodar out of the organization
funds by Jiten accused on the authority of a letter written by Bibhuti to
Jiten and made over to Damodar at Bankipore. It will be remembered
that Bibhuti and Damodar travelled together from Calcutta and Bibhuti
alighted at Bankipore to visit Bankim accused under Sachin’s order.
How this accused spent the few days prior to his arrest will be known
from the statements of Bibhuti at page 16 of the printed record and Mr.
Scott O’Connor. On 25th June Damodar went o Bibhuti’s house and was
taken to the house at Pande Hauli where Sachin was in hiding. He asked
Sachin how to distribute the leaflets he was going to publish and obtained
Rs. 15 for expenses from Sachin. Next day he went to Mr. Scott
O’Connor and on receipt of Rs. 100 and the promise of a further reward
he took that officer to the Pande Hauli house and thereby secured the
arrest of Sachin and Bibhuti. After his arrest on 19th July, he made a
confession before the Additional District Magistrate of Delhi.
We may now examine how far this evidence which establishes the
complicity of the accused in the conspiracy is supported by independent
testimony. First as to Bibhuti, that approver’s evidence regarding
Damodar’s renting a house at Kedar Ghat to shelter Vinayak Rao is
supported by the testimony of Madho Chandra Banerji who deposed that
house No. 187 at Harar Baghicha was let by him to one Damodar Sarup
on 10th March. He was not able to identify Damodar but produced the
slip Ex. 85 on which he had made a memorandum of the receipt of a
month’s rent in advance from Damodar. Another witness, Nibaran
Chandra, identified Damodar both before Mr. Hamilton and here as one
of the men who frequented the house in Pande Hauli which according to
Bibhuti was rented on behalf of the conspiracy. In the sections of the
judgement dealing with Sachin and Girja Babu accused we shall refer to
the independent evidence in support of Bibhuti’s account of the Calcutta
meeting with Rash Behari. As regards Bibhuti’s evidence concerning
Damodar’s acts on the 25th of June, Mr. Scott O’Connor’s testimony
affords convincing support. Coming to Mani Lal we have already shown
in part II of the judgment above how satisfactorily the fact of Mani Lal’s
visit to Kharwa is established by the careful identifications held personally
by Mr. Hollins, S.P. The statements of Ram Nath and Shankar Lal find
remarkable corroboration in the description which these approvers have
given of the accused in their confessions before the Magistrate in April
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 407
lat, when they were not aware of the accused’s name. The description
given by Shankar Lal appears at page 6 of the printed record of his
confession. After describing Pingley he says: “The smaller of the two
was of wheaten complexion, taller than I am, slight in figure; his chin
was shaven but had a few days’ growth on it. His lower jaws were long
and somewhat broad. His face was a little sunken and his cheeks very
hollow. When he spoke or listened he raised his eyebrows.” Shankar Lal
explained later on at page 20 of that record “when he spoke or listened
one of his eyebrows, I do not know which, but not both, used to raise
itself.” The whole description is wonderfully accurate and we who have
watched the accused for over three months can vouch for its accuracy.
Ram Nath described this accused at page 9 of his printed statement as
squint-eyed. The expression has given rise to considerable comment on
the part of the defence which urged that such a term cannot be applied to
Damodar’s eyes. The medical officer in charge of the Central Jail certified
that the accused was not squint-eyed but the question here is not whether
such an appearance of the eyes can or cannot be called squint-eyed
according to medical opinion. It is undeniable that Damodar’s eyes are
peculiar and Ram Nath’s explanation of the phrase appears to us to be a
reasonable one. He said “Before I knew Masterji’s name I described him
to the police as the squint-eyed man (bhenga), as one of the pupils of his
eyes is larger than the other and when he looks attentively they both look
a little inwards”. Mani Lal, Ram Nath and Shankar Lal whose acquaintance
the accused has denied identified him in July last at the 6th and 7th
identifications deposed to by Mr. Hadow. Another man Ram Chandra
also identified him at the 7th identification. Ram Chandra is a friend of
Ram Nath and described some of the meetings and discussions held at
Ram Nath’s dispensary. He also bears out Ram Nath’s statement that
Damodar wrote the labels on the two bottles Ex. 59 used at the dispensary
for putting up medicine. Even if we grant that this witness has no higher
status than that of an approver his identification of Damodar is of
considerable importance in bearing out the testimony of the approvers
Ram Nath and Shankar Lal. The confession of this accused before the
Delhi Magistrate is true so far as it goes, but as it avoids even the barest
mention of Sachin’s name it may be taken as certain that it is not a full
confession. Its support is not needed to convince us of the guilt of this
accused.
The defence of this accused need not detain us long. In his statement
408 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
he has denied all the incriminating evidence summed up above. A perusal
of his statement would show that we have refrained in this judgment
from referring to certain items of evidence which a court of law might
with justice have relied upon to support a weaker case. The case against
him is so convincing that we have confined ourselves to the broadest
facts and the plainest and most direct evidence. We do not believe the
accused’s allegations regarding the pressure put on him to confess and
become an approver; his confession gives no fresh information regarding
the conspiracy and the prosecution had nothing to gain by making him
an approver. The concealment of important and well established facts in
the confession proves that it cannot have been tutored. It is sufficient to
quote his statement regarding his identification by the approvers to show
how unreasonable it is. He stated “My idea is that a political suspect who
has been in lock-up for a week or two can be easily identified by a man
of common sense. His appearance would tell that.” The witnesses
produced on behalf of the accused have stated nothing to the advantage
of the prisoner. The three witnesses Satrahan Lal, Nand Kishor and Nand
Kumar, do not prove any alibi because no attempt was made by the
defence to establish that on any particular date deposed to by any of the
approvers, Damodar was in Rae Bareli and could not have been elsewhere.
His brother-in-law Uma Mahesh Mehra instead of deposing anything
favourable to him has testified to the writing of a certain exhibit which
otherwise would have depended on the uncorroborated testimony of
Bibhuti. At the time of the arrest of Sachin and Bibhuti on 26th July, Ex.
26 containing a list of names was found in the room occupied by them.
Bibhuti stated that the names at Nos. 24 to 30 (P. 16, 1. 33 and p. 37 1.
13) on this list were in Damodar’s handwriting and that the list was
prepared with a view to post seditious leaflets to those addresses. The
defence witness, Uma Mahesh, deposed that the names 24 to 28 were in
the handwriting of Damodar. This is a very important piece of evidence
in support of Damodar’s connection with the conspirators and his help in
one object of the conspiracy that of distributing seditious literature. The
prisoner has denied giving information to Mr. Scott O’Connor to secure
the arrest of Sachin and Bibhuti. It is of course false but we can understand
that his present situation as co-accused with other conspirators must compel
him to enter such a denial.
We can come to but one conclusion and that is that Damodar was a
member of the conspiracy and attempted to collect arms and ammunition
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 409
from Rao Gopal Singh of Kharwa for the purpose of waging war against
the king. We convict him of offences under sees. 121A and 122 read with
sec. 511, I. P. C. and pass concurrent sentences of rigorous imprisonment
for seven and five years respectively.
4. — DHARAM SINGH
8. — JADUNATH SINGH
These two prisoners are ex-sepoys of the 7th Rajputs stationed here
and are charged both for complicity in the revolutionary conspiracy and
under sec. 123 for concealing the existence of a design to wage war of
which they were aware. We would have held these prisoners guilty if we
had felt justified in relying on the testimony of the approver Dilla Singh.
We have already commented in part II of the judgment on the value we
attach to Dilla Singh’s testimony. He was certainly approached by the
conspirators, knew their objects and was prepared to help them, but we
do not believe that he has told us the whole truth and are therefore not
prepared to trust him where his evidence bears against individual accused
persons. On 23rd September, at the identification parade held by Mr.
Hamilton at the Central Jail, Bibhuti did not point out these prisoners
when asked to pick out the conspirators. This fact discloses his belief
that these prisoners were really not in the conspiracy and to judge by
Bibhuti’s statement such belief appears to be correct. So far as Bibhuti’s
knowledge goes he had seen these men in company with Dilla Singh and
Rash Behari in February and March last. His statement may be quoted in
full. After describing meetings with Dilla Singh, Jaleshwar Singh and
Puran Singh at which these prisoners were not present, he goes on to say
“We met other sepoys. Two of these sepoys are present in Court. They
are Dharam Singh and Jadunath Singh (points out accused No. 4 and 8).
I met Dharam Singh on the maidan with Dilla Singh on one occasion
only. I did not speak to him. He was present and could hear my
conversation with Dilla Singh. I met Jadunath Singh accused twice, with
Rash Behari at Raja Ghat. This was after the meetings with Dilla Singh
and after Rash Behari returned from Lahore.” Then later on while
describing Rash Behari’s stay in Benares in March he says “Among the
sepoys I saw with Rash Behari were Dilla Singh, Puran Singh and
410 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Jadunath Singh. I twice saw the sepoys with him at Raja Ghat. On the
first occasion all the three whom I have named were with him. On the
second day I only met Puran Singh and Jadunath Singh.” These statements
standing by themselves raise a suspicion of the prisoners’ knowledge of
the conspiracy but do not definitely prove it. The testimony of the sepoys
of the regiment Gaya Bakhsh, Bhagwan Bakhsh and Ausan Singh is not
of much value. These sepoys saw two Bengalis talking to the prisoners
among others once or twice. The talk took place in a big barrack and was
not heard by the witnesses, so it will not be fair to presume from such
vague evidence that sedition was talked by the prisoners at the time.
Dharam Singh had gone on recruiting duty in February and March last
and was awarded Rs. 50 for his good work. Jadunath Singh has deposed
that when he returned to his village after his discharge he sent his brother
and cousin to serve in the regiment. Hony Capt. Adhar Singh of the 7th
Rajputs has given Dharam Singh a good character.
On a consideration of the entire evidence we feel inclined to give
these prisoners the benefit of doubt and acquit them of the offences with
which they are charged. We order their release.
GANESM LAL : ACCUSED NO. 5
He is a resident of Delhi and was arrested by the Delhi police on
the 6th September, 1915. His trial with the Benares conspirators was
decided upon as the Delhi authorities did not think it necessary to have a
separate special court when the number of the accused at Delhi did not
exceed two.
Though less in touch with Rash Behari and Sachindra than Lachhmi
Narain Ganeshi Lal was more prominent and dangerous in his seditious
activities
The points, which the prosecution evidence has been confined to as
incriminating Ganeshi are —
(1) His seditious compositions.
(2) His contribution of seditious poems to proscribed newspapers.
(3) His talking part in consultation to shoot police officers.
(4) His position as an intermediary between Rash Behari and an
unnamed Maulvi of Delhi who was to incite Muhammadan
troops there to mutiny.
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 411
 (5) The use of his house by anarchists as a meeting place to discuss
their plans.
1. Ganeshi Lal’s house in Delhi was searched on the 10th March,
1913, when his two note-books containing seditious poems were found
there (Ex. 106). Some of the verses that are decidedly seditious and
incite to bloodshed are translated below:-
Ex. 106-I, page 31, couplet 3
The fragrance of the musk intoxicates the hunter only when
the gazelle has first been put to death.
Ex. 106-I, p. 31, couple 4
The tree of our liberties shall blossom and bear fruit only
when we shall water its bed with our own blood.
Ex. 106-I, p. 31, couplet 6
Why is it that some honour and fame remain to us until this
day? Because some martyrs of the land have laid down their
lives before
Ex. 106-I, p. 82, couplet 1
Who that has tasted patriotism, to him the one ambition of life
becomes to slay (his country’s foes).
The seditious element in these translated verses as too clear to need
any comment. Even the third among them is a veiled incitement to emulate
the bloody deeds of the heroes of the mutiny.
The “Exhortation to the youth of India” at pages 79 and 80 is
distinctly seditious. We have not thought it fit to embody a translation of
it in our judgment simply because of its length.
The concluding couplets of the poem last named and those from
which our quotations have been taken contain Ganeshi Lal’s nom-de-
plume khasta and prove his authorship of them.
One of the poems was composed in praise of the notorious Hardayal
who was helping the anarchist propaganda in this country from America.
Its composition by Ganeshi Lal is admitted.
2. The “Exhortation” and two other poems admittedly composed
by Ganeshi Lal have appeared in the proscribed paper Ghadr (Ex. 169
and 170). One of them was written in praise of Hardayal, but was printed
in Ghadr with appropriate omissions as a poem in praise of Arabindo
Ghosh, the leader of anarchist movement in Bengal. Ganeshi Lal suggests
that the poems in the Ghadr must have been copied from Hindu Akhbar
to which he had contributed in 1912 and 1913. But no issue of the paper
412 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
has been produced to establish the truth of this statement, nor is there
any legal evidence to prove that the paper has ceased to appear. It will
therefore be reasonable to presume that the story about Hindu Akhbar is
a mere fiction and that the poems were actually contributed by Ganeshi
Lal to the Ghadr. Mere admiration of Hardayal may be proof of a seditious
tendency but contribution to a notoriously proscribed paper is active
participation in a culpable conspiracy.
The object of that conspiracy as is evident from the contents of the
paper is the complete overthrow of British sovereignty in India. The very
poems that have appeared in the Ghadr are copied in Ex.106-2, which was
also found at the search. Ganeshi Lal could have no reason to copy them
unless it was to send the manuscript to some newspaper for publication.
3. Ram Nath mentions the consultation among Ganeshi Lal,
Sachindra, Partab and himself on the 27th or 28th March, 1915, at which
the murder of certain police officers was discussed. Bibhuti’s evidence
shows that the object of Sachin’s visit to Delhi, in March last, was to
help the Delhi conspirators in a projected bomb outrage, and that a bomb
together with a revolver and some cartridges was actually sent to Sachin
through Preonath, absconder. The probabilities thus support the truth of
Ram Nath’s version.
4. References to Ganeshi’s acquaintance with a Maulvi of Delhi
occur in the evidence of three approvers, namely Mani Lal, Shankar Lal
and Ram Nath. Of these the testimony of the first alone relates to the
point under discussion. While Mani Lal was putting up at Ganeshi Lal’s
on the 23rd Jan, 1915, the latter referred to the Maulvi as one who was
ready for the work desired by Rash Behari and his colleagues. On the
day following Rash Behari especially entrusted a message to Mani, meant
for Ganeshi Lal, to prepare the Maulvi for the work. On the 16th Feb,
1915, Rash Behari sent another message to Ganeshi Lal through Mani
assigning special task to the Maulvi and informing him of the altered
date of the proposed rising. The Maulvi was desired to distribute some
seditious Urdu leaflets to the Muhammadan regiments at Delhi. Ganeshi
Lal put up Mani on the 17th Feb, promised to be ready for the work and
to induce the Maulvi to stir up the Muhammadans (p. 46). A similar
message for the Maulvi was sent through the same channel and
communicated to Ganeshi Lal on the 20th of the same month (p. 48). The
reasons for accepting the truth of Mani’s version appear in part II of the
judgment and need not be reiterated here. It will suffice to say that Mani’s
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 413
testimony as to those meetings is supported by Ram Nath. Dwarka Nath
too speaks of Mani’s visit of the 17th February.
As to the identity or doings of the Maulvi we have no clear evidence
before us. Ram Nath describes him as a certain Abdul Hamid or Majid,
a teacher in Madrasa Numaniya (p. 111). Mr. Hadow also makes a
reference to a Maulvi, but in his opinion the evidence available was not
sufficient to warrant the Maulvi’s prosecution. Mani’s reference to the
Maulvi could not have been inspired by the police, when the latter are
not in a position to prove him to be an anarchist. Nor is it likely that
Mani should out of his own imagination create a fictitious anarchist at
Delhi when he has no connection either with the town or its people. He
is not suggested to have any enmity with Ganeshi. It therefore seems
natural to presume that Mani’s information about the Maulvi must have
come from no source but Rash Behari or Ganeshi Lal. Mere obscurity
into which the Maulvi’s identity is shrouded does not dispose of the fact
that Ganeshi Lal’s assistance was sought for and promised to tamper
with the troops, though through a third person.
5. We are led to an affirmative conclusion on point 5 on an
examination of the evidence of Mani Lal who is supported by Ram Nath.
Mani Lal stayed with Ganeshi for two days in January and on the 17th
February, 1915. On each occasion Ganeshi Lal knew that his guest’s
mission was connected with the anarchist movement, of which Rash Behari
was the leader. He also took part in conversations that took place at his
house, with a view to promote anarchist plots.
The defence like that of all the other accused is purely negative. It
consists in the wholesale denial of all the incriminating facts established
by the prosecution.
Of the two witnesses examined for the defence, Ganeshi’s cousin
Chiranji Lal alone has made any attempt to throw doubts on the
prosecution theory, but that attempt, to say the least of it, is valueless.
All that he has suggested is that their house was two small and too near a
public thoroughfare to permit of such seditious consultation being held
there. He resides still in the same house and denies having ever seen
there Mani Lal, Shankar Lal or Ram Nath. According to his own statement
the house accommodates four permanent tenants with space enough to
put up occasional guests. None has ever suggested that the conspirators
who met at the house did so in much larger numbers. The danger of
being overheard on account of its situation could easily be avoided by
414 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
conversing in low tones. The denial of all knowledge of the approvers
above mentioned is of no value coming as it does from a relation alone.
It has also been urged for the defence that the strict police surveillance,
to which Ganeshi Lal was subjected, would have made the use of his house
for such meetings impossible. But we have the evidence of Mr. Orde to
show that the surveillance ceased after the 4th September, 1914. The house
came to be used by the conspirators in the first quarter of 1915.
The accused’s past record, prior to 1912, shows that he was in no
way ignorant of the character of his work or the danger to which it
exposed: In 1908 he escaped prosecution by tendering an abject apology
wherein the seditious nature of his poems was distinctly acknowledged
(Ex. 120). The influence of poetry on young and impressionable minds
cannot be overated. Nevertheless we find him writing a seditions poem
which appears in a proscribed newspaper in 1913. Ganeshi Lal was under
police surveillance in 1914 and yet early in 1915 we find him co-operating
with Rash Behari and other members of a dangerous conspiracy against
the State. Such persistence in the path of error betrays a perverted and
criminal mind.
We find guilty of the charge under sec. 121-A I. P. C., and sentence
him to seven years R. I.
7. — JITENDRA NATH SANYAL
This accused was arrested along with Kalipado by Mr. Scott
O’Connor on 16th July at a house here at Ramapura. Bibhuti says that
after the split in the Y.M.A. Jitendra Nath Sanyal joined the party of his
brother Sachindra, that he carried letters to Rash Bihari addressed to
Bibhuti while Bibhuti was prevented from leaving his house on account
of his father’s death, that it was Jitendra who took him to Sachindra’s
house to see Rash Behari on the latter’s return to Benares from the Punjab
at the end of February or the beginning of March 1915, that he sent
Jitendra to tell Mani Lal to hide himself after Mani Lal’s return from
Kapadwanj in April last, and that Jitendra acted as accountant for the
conspiracy and kept the organization money deposited by Rash Behari at
the house of Sachindra. Bibhuti has further deposed that he obtained Rs.
10 from Jitendra to send to Annada for the latter’s journey from Rupiat
to Calcutta to met Sachindra and that it was to Jitendra he wrote for the
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 415
payment of Rs. 160 to Damodar as ordered by Rash Behari. Mani Lal
bears out Bibhuti and says that Jitendra told him to hide himself after his
return from Kapadwanj. When Bibhuti was recalled on 15th January, he
stated in cross-examination that in March last Jitendra and he took the
Maharatta Hanurkar to the lodgings of Rash Behari from the theosophical
school boarding house. Bibhuti has also deposed to receiving informations
from Jitendra in connection with the conspiracy such as the circumstances
attending the arrest of Surendra accused in the Arms Act case and the
incident of Sachindra’s attempt to bring away a gun while he was a guest
of Moitra. After Bibhuti’s return to Benares from Calcutta, Jitendra told
him of the payment of Rs. 160 to Damodar. All this evidence of the
accused’s complicity in the conspiracy receives independent corroboration
from the manner of his arrest and the articles found in his and Kalipado’s
possession at the time. Mr. Scott O’Connor has described the arrest and
the search and as they are of considerable importance in the case of this
accused and of Kalipado the words of the witness may be quoted here.
He says “I knocked at the door and it was opened after some hesitation
by Jitendra accused. I asked him what he was doing there and if they
were any other persons, in the house. He said he had merely come to the
house to read a book and that there were no other persons there. I think
I had seen Jitendra before. When he opened the door I knew who he was.
I thought that he was trying to delay me so I ran upstairs. On the upper
storey I noticed two Bengalis on the floor in a room at the back which
was very dark. I called up my police and I called the two Bengali boys to
the door of the room and asked them their names. One of them gave his
name as Tulshi Prasad Moitra and the other refused to give any name. I
thereupon arrested them. The person who refused to give his name was
the accused Kalipado. I went into the room and brought out a Dari on
which I found small pieces of a Swadhin Bharat. Leaflet. I also found in
the corner a jar of water in which there were larger pieces of a Swadhin
Bharat leaflet and some torn pieces of paper. It still has the paper in it.
I had seen the Swadhin Bharat just before and some of the pieces in the
jar were large enough to be read and were read at the time by Inspr
Mukerji. The pieces of paper I found in the jar were floating in the jar
and were not sodden. In the same room I found the list of names Ex. 34.
Ex. 101 is the search-list which I dictated to Inspr Mukerji at the time
while the search was going on. I was informed that the owner of the
house the witness Sita Ram had arrived. I went down and questioned
416 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
him. He pointed out Jitendra and Kalipado as the persons who had come
to him to take the house. He produced from his pocket there and then a
small scrap which is Ex. 84-2. I signed it at that time and told him that
he would have to produce it. Ex. 84-1 was found in the room where
Kalipado and Tulshi Prasad were found. Sita Ram pointed out the receipt
to me on the floor of the room just after showing me the scrap Ex. 84-2
“ It is evident that this accused and Kalipado with Tulshi Prasad were
preparing covers to post seditious literature which was in their possession.
They were caught in the act of carrying out one object of the conspiracy,
the distribution of seditious literature. The accused defence that he had
gone to the house to play a race game on the invitation of Tulshi Prasad
cannot be taken seriously. Sita Ram, the owner of the house, has deposed
that it was Jitendra who rented the house under the name of Sachindra
Nath Datta. He saw both Jitendra and Kalipado at the time of their arrest,
so his subsequent identification of these accused is not of much value,
but there is no reason why this witness should pick Jitendra out of the
three as the person who actually rented the house unless this were the
fact. The receipt Ex. 84-1 granted by Sita Ram for a month’s rent in
advance and found in the room where Kalipado was arrested contains the
date in Hindi corresponding to 7th June. The defence called several
witnesses to prove that the accused was in a village in Jubbulpore on that
date. His cousin Abhay Charan Sanyal, who is an overseer in the P. W.
D. in the Jubbulpore district, deposed that Jitendra arrived in Jubbulpore
on 31st May, and left on 28th June. Duli Chand, contractor, and Bare
Lal, chaprasi, who are under the influence of Abhay Charan, have
supported his testimony. No reliance can be placed on such partisan
evidence. In addition, the defence has produced two postcards and the
register of a sarai at Jubbulpore in support of the alibi. The postcards
Ex. A2 and A8 prove satisfactorily that Jitendra was staying with his
cousin in the Jubbulpore district from about the middle of June till the
28th of June. On the other hand the evidence in support of Jitendra’s
presence in Jubbulpore in May bears marks of fabrication. Darshan Singh,
constable, and Ismail Hasan, Sub-Inspr., have given oral testimony in
support of the entry regarding Jitendra in the Dharamshala register Ex.
A12. There are reasons, however, for believing that the entry was added
subsequently for the purposes of this case.
The headings in the register require an entry of the name of the
leader of a party and not of the followers. The description of every
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 417
solitary traveler and only of the leader of a party has been given under
almost all the other entries. Of the entries concerning parties of two or
more which precede No 2462, none but Nos 2404 and 2460 gives a
description of followers. It looks extraordinary that the self-same writer
who started to enter a description of each follower under No. 2460 should
have considered none necessary under no 2461, and selected only Jiten
under No. 2462 as worthy of such treatment. If Abhay Charan’s official
position dispensed with the necessity of such an entry as regards himself
and his servant, surely his own nephew Jiten did not merit a differential
treatment. If Darshan Singh (D. W. 40) is to be believed, Abhay Charan
was an absolute stranger to him, and the omission as to his description
was merely accidental (p. 380, lines 32&33). Abhay Charan speaks of
his stay at the Dharamshala every week-end, thereby implying that the
omission of his description entry was due to the writer’s knowledge of
himself. But neither the official keeping the register (D. W. 40) nor the
entries that cover a period of a month and a half support this version.
There is no mention of Abhay Charan except under No. 2462. According
to Darshan Singh and Ismail Hassan no such omission could be made as
regards any person who happened to stay at the Dharamshala (p.
380&381). Abhay Charan’s explanation about the absence of any other
entry in his name thus looks a pure invention. Under entry No. 3250,
which is the last of the page, the description of the followers looks an
obvious interpolation. This lends additional force to the conclusion that
Jiten’s description is a subsequent insertion. Even granting that Sita Ram
has made a mistake and that it was not Jitendra but either of his companions
who rented the room the significance of the arrest and of the articles
recovered does not diminish. The defence Counsel, Mr. Chatterji, threw
out the suggestion that Tulshi Prasad was a police spy who collected
seditious material and entangled Jitendra and Kalipado who had incurred
the suspicion of the police. This suggestion becomes grotesque when we
remember that at the first alarm of police, means were taken for the
destruction of incriminating evidence. We have carefully considered the
counsel’s argument that Jitendra may only be on the fringe of the
conspiracy without knowledge of its existence of its existence or of its
objects, and we have rejected it after reviewing the evidence as a whole.
A man found in a strange house under the circumstances in which Jitendra
was found could not have been ignorant of the conspiracy or of its objects.
The comparative unimportance of the part taken by him is a point to be
418 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
considered in awarding sentence, but cannot affect the question of his
guilt. We hold him guilty of an offence under section 121A, I. P. C.,
and sentence him in consideration of his youth and of the fact that he was
probably much under the influence of his elder brother to rigorous
imprisonment for two years.
9. — KALIPADO MUKERJI
This accused was arrested along with Jitendra by Mr. Scott
O’Connor on 16th July last. We have discussed his arrest and the
circumstances attending it at length in the section dealing with Jitendra
and the same observations will apply here. Both Bibhuti and Hiranmoy
have deposed that this accused joined the party of Sachindra after the
split in the Y.M.A and visited Rash Behari at the house in Misri Pokhra.
Bibhuti says that the accused was present when a lecture was given by
Rash Behari at the house explaining the use of bombs and firearms, and
that when Rash Behari settled the programme of the revolution at the
Harish Chandra Ghat house in January 1915, he declared that Annada
and Kalipado were to be kept as reserves in Benares. Kalipado was not
present at the meeting of January 1915. Bibhuti adds that Sachindra gave
out at a meeting of his party that Kalipado had joined in distributing
seditious literature in 1913. When the conspirators took a house at Pande
Haveli in April, Kalipado visited that house. Neither the accused nor the
defence raised any points for consideration and the arguments in
connection with his arrest have already been considered. We think that
the testimony of Bibhuti and Hiranmoy-supported as it is by the evidence
afforded at the time of his arrest-justify us in holding him to be guilty of
an offence under section 121A, I.P.C. we convict him of that offence
and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
11. — NALINI MOHAN MUKERJI
This accused was arrested in Lucknow by S.I. Banerji on 10th
September last. The testimony of the approver Bibhuti and of Hiranmoy
indicates that he was an important member of the conspiracy. He admits
that he was a member of the Y.M.A. and states that he left it in May
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 419
1912 and did not keep up any connection with Sachin. Bibhuti, Mani
Lal and Hiranmoy are all agreed that he joined Sachin’s party of extremists
after Sachin seceded from the Y.M.A. According to both Hiranmoy
and Bibhuti he was a frequent visitor of Rash Behari at the Misri Pokhra
house, and Bibhuti says that he attended the meeting at that house where
Rash Bihari explained the use of bombs and firearms. He was not present
at Harish Chandra Ghat house meeting in January 1915 when Rash Behari
allotted their respective duties to the conspirators at the time of the
proposed rising, but Rash Behari said at the meeting that Nalini was to
go to Jubbulpore and seduce the troops there. It is admitted that Nalini
did go to Jubbulpore about the 21st February which was the date fixed at
first for the rising in the Punjab. What Bibhuti says about this visit is
“Nalini did go to Jubbulpore. I saw him on his return. He told me that
he had met some men who were ready to join the rising. As no rising had
taken place he had come back to Benares. It was on the afternoon of the
21st of February that I saw him and he told me this.” Bibhuti added that
Nalini was one of those who waited on the maidan on the night of 21st
February in anticipation of the rising. When Rash Behari returned from
the Punjab in March and stayed at Bibhuti’s house for a week Nalini was
one of those who visited him. According to Bibhuti when Rash Behari
left Benares in March and went further east Nalini accompanied him and
on his return said that he had left Rash Behari at Nadia. It was to Nalini
that Bibhuti conveyed information of Pingley taking away ten bombs
from Benares and asked him to pass on the information to Rash Behari
with whom he was in correspondence. When the conspirators rented the
Pande hauli house in April, Nalini was one of those who visited that
house. At the end of April or beginning of May Rash Behari wrote to
Nalini asking him to send Damodar and Bibhuti to Calcutta. After
Bibhuti’s return from Calcutta Nalini met him and told him that he was
going away to his village Bhutani in the Dacca district. Bibhuti has
deposed that he learnt from Sachindra at a meeting that seditious literature
was distributed and that Nalini was one of those who had taken part in
the distribution. This was in September 1913. Hiranmoy has given
direct testimony of Nalini’s part in this distribution and stated that Nalini
was among those with whom the witness pasted leaflets at ghats, at temples,
at post offices and various other public places. In examination-in-chief
Bibhuti deposed that the address on a wrapper, Ex. 15, in which the
Liberty leaflet, Ex. 9, was posted to witness Ram Narain Misra, Head
420 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Master of the Harish Chandra High School, was in the handwriting of
Nalini but in cross-examination he stated that he was doubtful about the
matter. According to Bibhuti Rash Behari employed Nalini once in
carrying a revolver, cartridges, bomb and capt to Calcutta.
No reason in assigned why Bibhuti, Mani Lal and Hiramony should
depose falsely against the accused. Their testimony is supported by the
retracted confession of Annada, accused. In this confession Annada
deposed from his personal knowledge that Nalini took part in the
distribution of seditious literature in 1913 and that he visited Rash Behari
when the latter took a house in Benares in 1914. During the trial and
arguments before us considerable stress was laid by the defence on the
inaccuracy of Bibhuti regarding two dates, one Nalini’s return from
Jubbulpore in February 1915 and the other his journey with Rash Behari
in March. The prosecution desired to prove that Nalini did visit
Jubbulpore in February as alleged by Bibhuti and produced Shashi Bhushan
Banerji, Munsarim of the Judge’s Court, Jubbulpore, to depose to that
visit. That witness did testify to the visit and deposed that Nalini left
Jubbulpore by the 8.30 a.m. train on the 21st. Taking the time of Nalini’s
departure from Jubbulpore as given by the witness to be correct Nalini,
could not have arrived here before 10 p.m. on that date and Bibhuti’s
statement of having met him in the afternoon would be negatived. We
have already dealth with this conflict of evidence in part II of the judgement
and given our reasons for preferring to believe Bibhuti. In this controversy
the defence overlooked the main fact that Bibhuti’s testimony regarding
Nalini’s visit to Jubbulpore just prior to the date fixed for the rising was
supported by testimony that is not impeached even by the defence.
Nalini’s explanation that he went away after a quarrel with his mother
thinking of going to Bombay to seek employment is palpably false.
According to the witness Shahshi Bhushan, Nalini’s luggage consisted
of a dhoti, an angochha and a lota and with such provision not but a fool
would expect to travel to Bombay and find employed there, and Nalini is
by no means a fool. On the second date also regarding Nalini’s departure
from Benares with Rash Behari certain observations have been made in
part II of this judgement. Bibhuti deposed thast Rash Behari left Benares
before Pingley arrived here a fetch the bombs, i.e., prior to 21st March,
and that this date was after the Matriculation Examination which ended
as proved before us on 24th March. Obviously Bibhuti has made a
mistake about dates here. Such a slip is very natural in recounting events
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 421
of some months ago, and as observed in Part II of the judgement Bibhuti
is not strong on dates. Possibly what happened was that Rash Bihari was
temporarily absent at the time of Pingley’s visit to fetch the bombs and
Bibhuti has mixed up in his mind this temporary absence with Rash
Behari’s final departure from Benares after 24th March. The large mass
of independent evidence which we have already examined in part II of
this judgement in support of Bibhuti’s testimony has satisfied us that he
has made a correct statement so far as his knowledge and impressions go
and that he has never attempted to tell lies of set purpose. As to one of
the two dates he is probably right and the other may be attributed to lapse
of memory, so we refuse to entertain the defence plea that Bibhuti has
purposely perverted the facts in order to implicate this accused falsely.
Another point argued by the defence was that Bibhuti has lied about
meeting Nalini in May on his return from Calcutta because it is urged
that Nalini left Benares soon after the end of the Matriculation Examination
on 24th March. The defence evidence in support of the allegation of
Nalini’s departure immediately after 24th March is not worthy of reliance.
Kashi Chandra Chakravarti, owner of the house at 26, Kukur Gali, in
which Nalini, his brothers and mother resided, has deposed that the last
rent paid by them was on 4th Baisakh, i.e., 17th April, 1915. The entry
in his account-book is “Receipt of rent Ram Sham Mukerji on account
of new house middle storey for two rooms on the eastern side of the
northern block for the month of Chait Re. 1-8” (Ex. A-7). We were told
that Ram Sham meant Nalini and his brother. The account-book contains
a number of loose leave strung together and any of these could easily be
removed and a fresh one added. No reliance can be placed on such a
book and it was not explained how after the tenants had occupied the
house for four days in Baisakh, no rent was recovered from them for any
period after the close of the month of Chait. The witness Nishi Kant
Bidyaratna has deposed vaguely the Nalini left the house immediately
after his examination. An attempt was made to obtain from this witness
evidence to the effect that Nalini went to Jubbulpore in February in
consequence of a quarrel with his brother but the witness had no knowledge
of Nalini’s visit to Jubbulpore. The other three witnesses examined on
behalf of this accused are Krishna Kant Chakravarti, Dr. Sircar and Raj
Charan Biswas to prove that he suffered from rheumatism in July and
Aguust 1913. This fact however would not render him incapable of
taking part in the distribution of seditious literature in September 1913,
422 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
nor incapacitate him subsequent to those months in such a way that he
could not take part in any of the acts of the conspiracy.
Nalini admits his friendship with Bibhuti, who was his class-fellow
and his visits to Bibhuti’s house which is close to his at Munshi Ghat.
No suggestion was made of Bibhuti having a grudge against the accused
or of the police holding Nalini in such disfavour that they would induce
Bibhuti to bear false evidence against a friend. Bibhuti’s evidence,
supported as it is by that of Mani Lal and Hiranmoy and by the retracted
confession of Annada, has conviced us of Nalini’s complicity in the
conspiracy. We are further convinced that he did go to Jubbulpore to
seduce the troops there from their allegiance. We hold him guilty of
offences under sections 121-A and 131, I.P.C., and sentence him to
rigorous imprisonment for five years under each count. The sentences
shall run concurrently.
LACHHMI NARAIN, ACCUSED NO. 10
Alike his townsman Ganeshi Lal, Lachhmi Narain was arrested at
Delhi on the 6th September, 1915.
As the elements of his guilt punishable under section 121A, I.P.C.,
the prosecution have sought to establish —
(a) his interviews with Rash Behari and Sachindra,
(b) his secret correspondence with Sachindra,
(c) Rash Behari’s messages to him for co-operation in anarchical
plots,
(d) his possession of seditious leaftlets.
The evidence is confined to the following interviews:—
(1) With Sachindra at Delhi on the 5th June, 1914.
(2) With Rash Behari at Benares on the 7th or 8th June, 1914.
(3) With Sachindra at Delhi some time between the 28th Sept.,
and 19th October, 1914.
(4) A few others with Sachindra at Delhi between the 26th March
and 19th April, 1915.
Proof of an earlier acquaintance is traceable in an incident, which
Mani Lal was to mention as his credential from Sachindra, when deputed
by the latter in May 1914 to fetch Lachhmi Narain to Benares. Lachhmi
Narain’s docility towards Sachindra when the latter went on a similar
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 423
mission early in June 1914, supplements that proof.
The incident referred to further proves Sachin and Lachhmi Narain’s
association with Amir Chand, the anarchical leader condemned to death
in the Delhi conspiracy case.
Lachhmi Narain was wanted by Rash Behari at Benares, Sachindra
put Mani Lal on the errand. The mission proved abortive, and Sachindra
started to try his hand. Mani Lal joined Sachindra at Bindraban, when
specially so desired, and thence the two proceeded together to their
destination. A short conversation with Sachindra induced Lachhmi Narain
to visit Rash Behari at Benares. A detailed account of the two missions
appears in Mani Lal’s evidence at pages 43 and 56 as well as at page 4 of
his confession.
The motive for so urgent a summons and so prompt a response
could not have been innocent, especially when we consider that Lachhmi
Narain was at the time under close police surveillance. He escaped from
his watcher at Shahdara station, he travelled by river to join the party at
Nizamuddin, he took a circuitous route via Muttra to Benares. This
constant effort to conceal his movements from the police betrays no
honest but culpable motive.
Throughout their argument it has been the boast of the defence
thast revival of Hinduism was the sole and guiding aim of Sachindra and
his party. But even a year’s residence at Kashi could not invest a Kayasth
from Bengal with the sanctity of either the Ganges or Shiva. If the
principles of the Hindu faith inspired all their actions, devotion to the
leader alone can explain Lachhmi Narain’s journey from Delhi to Benares.
Perhaps in so doing he acted as a true disciple of the new cult, which,
according to the defence, inculcates unfailing obedience to the Guru (p.
26). That Guru was Rash Behari, a man, whom after the judgements in
the Delhi and Lahore conspiracy cases, and in view of the evidence before
us, we cannot but regard as the principal organizer of all the anarchist
plots in Northern India.
Mani Lal’s version finds corroboration on material details in the
evidence of other approvers and also of independent witnesses. Bibhuti
and Hiranmoy personally observed Lachhmi Narain with Rash Behari at
the Misri Pokhra house in Benares. Mani Lal and Bibhuti identified
Lachhmi Narain before the Joint Magistrate on the 23rd September,
1915. Each was called separately, and picked Lachhmi out of a group of
17 or 18, mentioning his name at the same time. The accused attributes
424 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
these approvers’ familiarity with his appearance to his photo, previously
taken by the police. Mr. Orde’s evidence sufficiently refutes this theory.
The photo, taken on the 12th May, 1915, never left Mr. Orde’s office,
and the approvers had no access to it.
The watcher Abdul Hari proves the evasion at Shahdara. Mr. Orde
confirms this official’s report of the incident.
Munshi, a Kahar boy, took from his master Panna Lal’s place some
meals to Sachin during his short stay at Delhi. The way in which he
identified Lachhmi Narain in this Court gives his version the impress of
unquestionable veracity. While walking in front of the accused arranged
in a row, to pick out Sachin, he stopped all at once as if arrested by the
presence of an unexpected though familiar face. He then pointed out
Lachhmi Narain as the person he had seen with Sachin, when he took in
the latter’s midday meal.
Ram Nath has reproduced Lachhmi Narain and Sachin’s admissions
about this incident of the 5th June, Such a communication by Lachhmi
Narain, shortly after his return from Benares, fits in with the necessity
he then felt to utilize Ram Nath’s services, as post office for his letters
addressed by Sachin. Communication by Sachin, four months later,
may have been intended to win the confidence of a promising recruit.
The earliest account of this admission we find in Shankar Lal’s confession
recorded at Delhi the very day that Mani Lal was arrested at Benares.
Ram Nath gives the details of the next interview, which he had
special reasons to remember. Its object was to concert a plan for shooting
mr. petrie and the approver Dina Nath. Ram Nath was not only subjected
to the peculiar catechism always employed by Rash Behari, to test a new
recruit’s courage and determination. Mr. Hadow’s evidence shows that
Ram Nath had pointed out to him the scene of this interview, and that in
our opinion is sufficient corroboration of the latter’s testimony.
The object of Sachin’s visit to Delhi in March last and the help he
received from Benares in explosive arms and ammunition has been referred
to in the section dealing with Ganeshi Lal. Preonath, who took these
materials to Sachin, spoke of the meeting with the Delhi conspirators
including Lachhmi Narain.
Sachin had put up at Delhi in a house rented from Habibuddin.
The latter saw Lachhmi Narain with Sachin at the time of his departure
from Delhi. His identification of Lachhmi Narain before Mr. Hadow at
Delhi on the 8th May, 1915, and later on in this Court stamp his evidence
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 425
with genuineness. An attempt has been made by the defence to discredit
Habibuddin’s testimony, on the ground thaat he had failed at first to
identify Lachhmi Narain, and pointed out the wrong man. But the criticism
loses its value when we consider that the witness had received no external
help to fix the identity of the person he was looking for. Mr. Hadow’s
evidence shows that there was some similarity in the personal appearance
of Lachhmi Narain and the man picked out whom Habibuddin had first
mistaken for the accused. Habibuddin was never informed of his mistake
but was required to pick out the person wearing the coat and shoe of
which he had previously made a mention to Mr. Hadow. These articless
he had seen on Lachhmi Narain’s person on the date the latter had seen
Sachin off, and naturally they helped the witness in the identification.
Point B
Mutual exchange of letters bearing false addresses is borne out by
the testimony of Ram Nath and Mani Lal. Sachin’s letters to Lachhmi
Narain came addressed to Ram Nath as prearranged among them. Those
from Lachhmi Narain to Sachin bore an equally fictitious address. Mani
Lal came to know of this secret when deputed by Sachin on 22nd Jan.
1915, to press Lachhmi Narain for a reply to one of the letters thus
addressed through Ram Nath. About the identity of the writer and the
addressee Ram Nath got information from these very sources personally.
The evidence in proof of this deputation has been fully discussed in the
narrative part of the judgement. The correspondence needed no such
secrecy had the points dealt with been legally unobjectionable.
Point C
Mani Lal’s evidence refers only to the four following messages
entrusted to him, either directly by Rash Behari or through Sachindra:—
(1) Dated 22nd Jan., 1915, from Sachin to Lachhmi narain.
(2) Dated 24th Jan., 1915, from Rash Behari to Lachhmi Narain.
(3) Dated 16th Feb., 1915, from Rash Behari to Lachhmi Narain
and Dwarka Nath.
(4) Dated 20th Feb., 1915, from Rash Behari to Lachhmi Narain
and Dwarka Nath.
The first required Lachhmi Narain to arrange for Dwarka Nath’s
426 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
departure from Delhi on the 24th Jan., 1915. That was the date on
which Rash Behari passed Delhi on his way to the Punjab to plan a rising
on the 21st February, 1915. Probably Dwarka Nath’s services were
needed in this connection, and he was to accompany Rash Behari.
The message of the 24th informed Lachhmi Narain of the expected
rising and conveyed a remonstrance against his lukewarmness in the
anarchist cause.
The third was similar to the first except as to date and Dwaka Nath’s
destination. It conveyed to all the Delhi conspirators the information as
to the altered date of the proposed rising.
The last was for putting Lachhmi Narain and Dwarka Nath under
Sachin’s direct control at Benares.
Only the last two remained undelivered as Lachhmi Narain could
not be found.
The reasons for accepting Mani Lal’s statement about each of these
trips in connection with these messages have been fully discussed under
part II of the judgement and need not be repeated here.
Point D
Dwarka Nath has seen a leaflet like Exh. 9 with Lachhmi Narain
whom he has known for a number of years. We have it from Ram Nath
that such leaflets came to be distributed at Delhi on the 1st or 2nd January
1914, by Abad Behari, one of the anarchists condemned to death in the
Delhi Conspiracy case. He also mentions Lachhmi Narain’s previous
association with Abad Behari which would explain the former’s possession
of the leaflet.
The defence has adopted the easiest expedient to assert Lachhmi
Narain’s innocence in denying all the facts thus proved, except the Shahdara
incident. The evidence already summed up is traced to police tutoring a
suggestion which would not bear even a superficial scrutiny. The accused
has been under suspicion since the Delhi conspiracy case. He was under
close surveillance from 22nd April to 4th September, 1914. His house
was searched twice in February 1914 and once on the 31st March 1915.
He was arrested on the latter date, then released on the 5th April for want
of identification, re-arrested before 8th May, released in June, but
interned up to his re-arrest on the 6th September 1915. If the police were
in the least inclined to resort to unscrupulous methods to secure his
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 427
conviction, it should not have taken them so long since February 1914 to
fabricate false evidence. They should have felt no difficulty in obtaining
sufficient material at Delhi, as importing men from Benares was both
unnecessary and risky. It is urged as a proof of innocence that nothing
incriminating was actually found at the different searches of Lachhmi
Narain’s house, but it is ignored that Delhi arrests had made the local
conspirators more cautious. The defence make a virtue of Lachhmi
Narain’s inclination expressed in Janunary 1915, to sever his connection
with the conspirators. This would have been a powerful plea had the
accused persisted in his attitude, but he did not, and we find him in close
association with the other members of the party as late as Mani Lal’s
visit to Delhi on March 16th, though, like Mani Lal himself, he seems
to have kept out of the way on the actual date of the rising. Ram Nath’s
evidence incriminating the accused is attributed to pique and professional
jealousy, as to neither of which there is any proof. Evidence as to a
wrestling bout between Lachhmi Narain and Ram Nath does not mention
any straining of personal relations between the two.
The accused is by no means a raw youth. The attention paid to him
by the police in 1914 has not made him wiser. The association with such
conspirators as Rash Behari and Sachin proves his consciousness of their
objects which aimed at the subversion of the British rule in India. It is
amply proved that he was a member of a conspiracy, the object of which
was to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India and convicting
him under section 121-A we sentence him to five years’ R.I.
12. — PARTAB SINGH
This accused, who is a resident of Shahpura State in Central India
was arrested at Asaranada railway station by the station master Badri
Prasad on 30th July last. Asaranada is on the Jodhpur-Kotah line and has
been referred to in part II of the judgment as the place from which the
parcel of cartridges was dispatched by the absconding accused Ganesh
Dan. He is mentioned by Bibhuti as one of those who frequented the
Misri Pokhra house of Rash Behari. Mani Lal gives details as to how
Partab Singh was first introduced to Sachindra. Durga Dan, a cousin of
Partab Singh, resided in Benares, and under orders of Sachindra Mani
Lal went to him about May 1914, to enquire about Partab Singh.
428 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Subsequently on 4th September 1914, on the day of an eclipse of the
moon when Partab Singh came to the house of Durga Dan with Ganesh
Dan, Durga Dan introduced Partab Singh and Ganesh Dan to Mani Lal.
After this introduction Mani Lal took them both to the house of Narendra
Nath where Sachindra had arranged to meet them. After this meeting
with Sachindra the two were introduced to Rash Behari Bose at Queen’s
Gardens and Rash Behari directed Mani Lal to put up these two Central
India men whenever they visited Benares. It was at this time that Bibhuti
must have seen Partab Singh visiting the Misri Pokra house. Partab Ssingh
was in Benares again in March 1915, and stayed at the house of Mani
Lal. Bibhuti gives corroborative evidence of this visit when he says that
he was him with Rash Behari and also at the house of Mani Lal. (P. 36
cross-examination). Partab Singh accompanied Mani Lal to Delhi on
13th March and stopped at Rewea Shankar’s hotel where he was joined
by Masterji and Pingley. It appears that at that time he was not introduced
by Mani Lal to any of the Delhi conspirators, except Lachhmi Narain.
He accompanied Mani Lal as far as Ajmere and went on to Marwar
juction with Mani Lal’s mother-in-law. He awaited Mani Lal’s return
from Kharwa at the junction. This was on the 18th of March. We next
find reference made to this accused by the Delhi approvers who met him
in the company of Sachindra on the 25th or 26th of March. Ram Nath
met them at the house of Ganeshi Lal and took him to be Hiranmony
Banerji for reasons which will be given in the section of the judgement
dealing with Sachindra. Sachindra and Partab rented a house at Lal Kuan
where Sachin became ill and was taken by Partab to Calcutta. From
Calcutta he appears to have returned to Benares. The thread of the story
is then taken up by Bibhuti who has deposed “After Rash Behari’s final
departure I got a letter from him which was given my by Partab Singh.
Partab Singh told me that Sachin had fallen ill at Delhi, and that he had
taken him to Calcutta, that there he had met Rash Behari, and that Rash
Behari had given him the letter. I destroyed the letter. In it Rash Behari
advised us to make a fresh organization. He also said in the letter that he
was going to give us a large amount of ammunition and arms, and that
we must wait for that. The letter was addressed to Preonath who was
with me when I read the letter.” At that time Partab gave Bibhuti the
address of Mangilalji Golecha, Jauhari Bazar, Jaipur city, for his letters
and Bibhuti has stated in cross-examination that he had seen Rash Behari
many times writing to Partab at this address. Bibhuti’s account of Partab’s
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 429
return to Benares from the east in borne out by Mani Lal’s statement
regarding him meeting with Partab aboutthe same time. He says: “I
afterwards met Partab Singh who came to Benares. Partab Singh told
me that at the time of the arrest of Ram Nath and Shankar Lal he was at
Delhi with Sachindra Nath, accused, and at that time Sachindra was
sick. He had taken him to a town in Eastern Bengal and handed him over
to Babu Sahib meaning Rash Behari Bose. He told me that he had come
to Benares with instructions from Rash Behari to other people to destroy
bombs as they were now no longer useful. Partab stayed at my house.”
This account of Partab Singh’s connection with the conspiracy will
show that he was deeply in it. Mani Lal has deposed how the tall Charan
Ganesh Dan with whom Partab Singh came to Benares in September
1914, brought arms and ammunition concealed in pillow cases several
times from Central India. The argument in the testimony of Mani Lal
and Bibhuti as regards two of the visits of Partab Singh to Benares is of
considerable importance considering that those statements agree in very
few particulars and deal with different phases and acts of the conspiracy.
Even the defence admitted that the contents of Mani Lal’s statement
made in Delhi were not known to the subordinate police officers here at
the time when Bibhuti’s confession was recorded and refrained from
alleging thast Bibhuti was tutored on the Partab and the Charan Ganesh
Dan to Sachin. Durga Dan’s guardian Krishna Datta was also examined
an a witness and his status in life and appearance left no doubt as to his
being a truthful witness. The defence counsel Mr. Chatterji admitted as
much. This witness identified Sachin in Court, deposed to Sachin’s
visits to Durga Dan and his objection to such visits and stated that Partab
Singh and a Charan had come to stay in the house of Durga Dan on the
day of the eclipse of the moon in the month of Bhadon 1914. Thus there
is clear corroborative evidence of Partab Singh’s introduction to Sachin.
Next as to Partab’s visit to Delhi with Mani Lal there is the evidence of
Rewa Shankar and Dalpat Ram who have deposed that Mani Lal came to
the hotel with Partap. These witnesses picked out Partab in August last
at the 10th identification deposed to by Mr. Hadow and also identified
him in Court before us. The fact of Partab Singh’s renting a room at Lal
Kuan in Delhi along with Sachindra on his return from Marwar to Delhi
is supported by the testimony of the witnesses Nazir and Habibuddin.
The room was let by Habibuddin and during his absence the keys were in
the charge of Nazir. Nazir has deposed that Partab Singh and another
430 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
man came to see the room in March, and Habibuddin has stated that
Sachin and Partab occupied the room. The counterfoil in Habibuddin’s
receiptbook shows that the tenancy must have commenced on the 25th or
26th of March. Habibuddin has further stated that Sachin was ill when
he and Partab left the room, and that on the day when they left Lachhmi
Narain accused had come to the room. Nazir picked out Partab Singh in
August last at the tenth identification deposed to by Mr. Hadow and also
identified him in Court before us. The fact of Partab Singh’s renting a
room at Lal Kuan in Delhi along with Sachindra on his return from
Marwar to Delhi is supported by the testimony of the witnesses Nazir
and Habibuddin. The room was let by Habibuddin and during his absence
the keys were in the charge of Nazir. Nazir has deposed that Partab
Singh and another man came to see the room in March, and Habibuddin
has stated that Sachin and Partab occupied the room. The counterfoil in
Habibuddin has stated that Sachin and Partab occupied the room. The
counterfoil in Habibuddin’s receipt book shows that the tenancy must
have commenced on the 25th or 26th of March. Habibuddin has further
stated that Sachin was ill when he and Partab left the room, and that on
the day when they left Lachhmi Narain accused had come to the room.
Nazir picked out Partab Singh in August last at the tenth identification
deposed to by Mr. Hadow and also here while Habibuddin identified the
prisoner in this Court. Mani Lal, Ram Nath and Shankar Lal also
recognised Partab Singh whom he took to be Hiranmoy in a statement
before the Magistrate on page 12 of that statement. He said “Hiranmoy
Banerji was about 16 years of age with a round face and hollow cheeks.
He was of medium colour. He wore spectacles and had a mark from
them on the bridge of his nose. He was short-sighted. He was short and
thin and talked urdu well and Bengali as well.” It may be mentioned that
Hiranmony who gave evidence before us does not wear spectacles, is tall
and over 20 years of age. The description given by Ram Nath fits Partab
Singh quite well. It is argued that the mark on Partab Singh’s nose is the
result of a boil. However that may be the mark is there and Partab Singh
does wear spectacles, so the accuracy of the description is fully established.
Shankar Lal at page 16 of his statement before the Magistrate described
Partab Singh as “long in face, sawala rang, nose not pointed but
somewhat round, wearing spectacles with a gold frame, short, long hair,
slight, and age 18 or 19 years.” It will be seen that Ram Nath and Shankar
Lal, though they may differ in describing the shape of his face, have
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 431
noticed and remembered Partab Singh’s appearance well before they
identified him. Bibhuti identified Partab in the presence of Mr. Hamilton
on 23rd September last in the central Jail here.
On behalf of the defence Chhail Bihari Lal, a doctor of the Kotah
City hospital, deposed to Partab Singh’s visiting the hospital from the
4th to the 15th of February, 1915. He was the only witness produced on
behalf of this accused and his evidence has no bearing on any of the
matters referred to above. The prisoner’s statement contains a number
od denials six reasons to explain away his identifications by various
witnesses and the allegation that he was brought into this case because he
refused to bear false testimony in the assumed position of an approver at
the dictation of Mr. Paghey, Dty. S.P., who investigated the Arrah
murder case in 1914. The reasons given by him for his identification at
Delhi by persons whom he alleges to be entire strangers to him are —
“(1) The police have my photo, from the time when my house was
searched in the Arrah murder case and Kotah murder case.
(2) When I was brought to Delhi I was kept staying at the station
for half an hour or three-quarters of an hour and a great crowd
collected at the station to see me.
(3) When I stood up for identification all the other persons were
tall as there was a tall Charan also to be identified at the same
time. I was the shortest of all the persons paraded. My hair
was very long and I had a short beard under the chin but none
on the cheeks. The other persons who were made to wear
spectacles were all tall and none of them had beards.
(4) Before the identification I was taken outside and told that the
Sahib had not come and I might go to relieve myself.
(5) I had been in lock-up eight or ten days and my clothes were
dirty and my face showed that I had been in lock-up.
(6) Those who identified were called by constables and they did
not give my name but only said ‘this was the man’.”
These reasons do not appeal to us. Naturally it would not be possible
to find men who would be exact replica of Partab Singh with the same
length of hair on the face and the same height. The answers given by
Mr. Hadow in cross-examination satisfied us that every possible care
was taken to make the identification at Delhi a genuine one. Mr. Hadow
has stated “I do not think I ever saw a photograph of Partab Singh before
his arrest. So far as I remember Partab was wearing spectacles with rims
432 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
of white metal at the identification. I believe we took possession of
thiose spectacles. We put spectacles on to five other persons at the time
of the identification. Theywere of similar pattern to the spectacles shown
me, Ex. 121. The spectacles which we put on other persons were got
from the bazar. They were new. We took care to take the labels off
them. The identification note shows that one of the spectacles had similar
rims to these. I think Partab had longer hair than any of the others. He
had a growth of hair under the chin. Nobody else had similar hair or
similar growth under the chin. We put half the parade so as to correspond
as far as possible with the Charan and half with Partab. The Charan was
a tall man and looked about 25 or 26.” As regards Partab Singh’s
identification by Bibhuti his explanation was that all the other people
who were paraded were convicted and that Bibhuti seized the hands of
the Bengalis along the line. Mr. Hamilton has stated that the 20 other
men paraded with the accused at the time of the identification were dressed
either in their own or other people’s garments taken from the bundle in
which prisoners’ clothes are kept in the jail godown and that there was
nothing in their dress to suggest that they were not prisoners awaiting
trial. When Partab Singh was questioned by this Court how his
explanation served him when he himself was not a Bengali he replied “I
had nothing on my head” and then added “He took all those who were
not convicts.” This is certainly not true because Bibhuti did not point out
the accused Dharam Singh and Jadunath Singh at that identification. We
are of opinion that the identifications both at Delhi and here can be
safely relied upon to establish the previous acquaintance with Partab
Singh of all those who picked him out.
It is clear that Partab Singh’s services were utilized by the
conspirators to get into touch with disaffected people in Central India
and that he made every effort within his power to support the aims of the
conspiracy. We hold him guilty of an offence under section 121-A and
sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
13. — RABINDRA NATH SANYAL
There is very little evidence against this accused to connect him
with the conspiracy. Bibhuti mentioned him as a member of the inner
circle of the Y.M.A., but has not stated that he joined his brother
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 433
Sachindra’s pasrty of revolutionists. Two other facts mentioned by Bibhuti
are that he with his borther Jitendra kept the accounts of the organization
and that once in March 1915 informed Bibhuti of Pingley’s arrival in
Benares. Mani Lal identified him in the presence of Mr. Hamilton but
did not allege that he had anything to do with the conspiracy. Annada in
his retracted statement deposed that this accused started with Preonath
the Students Union League but we have no evidence before us to show
that its members took part in the conspiracy. Annada’s reference to the
accused in connection with the distribution of Liberty leaflets is not
positive; he said after mentioning Sachin “I think the other Sanyal brothers
were in it too.” It is probable that without knowledge of the conspiracy
the accused carried messages and did other work innocent on the surface
at the request of his elder brother Sachindra Nath.
We acquit him of all the offences with which he is charged and
order his release.
14. — SACHINDRA NATH SANYAL
He is the principal man among the accused before the Court and if
his complicity in the conspiracy were examined in detail, it would fill a
volume as large as that containing the record of the evidence in the case.
His personality and influence are visible in almost all the acts of the
conspiracy disclosed before us. It is however be sufficient to give only
the broad outlines to make out a connected case establishing his guilt.
The following facts are defintely proved against him:—
(1) That he left the Y.M.A. at the close of 1912 because the views
of that body were not sufficiently practical to satisfy him, and
became the leader of a party in sympathy with the Bengal
anarchists.
(2) That he took the chief part in the distribution of Liberty and
Swadhin leaflets in the autumn of 1913.
(3) That he was closely associated with Rash Behari during the
latter’s stay in Benares in 1914, and was present on the occasion
of the explosion of a bomb cap in the Misri Pokhra house.
This definitely places him as a man who was prepared to resort
to the use of bombs to further the designs of his party.
(4) That in Rash Behari’s absence he had the chief direction of the
434 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
movements of the conspirators at Benares.
(5) That in August 1914 he obtained possession of a gun from
Panchu Gopal Moitra at Moradabad for the purposes of the
conspiracy.
(6) That he paid two visits to Delhi in June and October 1914 in
connection with the conspiracy, on the first occasion to bring
Lachhmi Narain to see Rash Behari at Benares, and on the
second occasion, when he first met Ram Nath, apparently with
the object of finding some one to shoot Mr. Petrie and the
approver Dina Nath (vide Ram Nath’s evidence, p. 102).
(7) That he visited the lines of the 7th Rajputs at Benares and
made repeated attempts in conjunction with the Lahore
conspirators Pingley and Sucha Singh and with the approver
Bibhuti to seduce the troops from their allegiance.
(8) That he paid another visit to Delhi in March 1915 in company
with Partab Singh accused and held various conferences at
Ganeshi Lala’s house, his main object being again to secure
the killing of police officers and approvers (Ram Nath’s
evidence, pp. 104 and 105).
(9) That he was present at the final interview with Rash Behari in
the room above the Dhurumtollah post office at Calcutta when
plans for future action were discussed and Girja Babu was
named as leader in Rash Behari’s absence.
(10) That accused was privy to the projected rebellion of Feb. 21,
1915, and went to the maidan with other conspirators in the
hope of its taking place.
(11) That he got into touch with the Bengal anarchists through one
Makhan Lal.
(12) That he was instrumental in procuring bombs and ammunition
from Calcutta for the purposes of the party and that he was
cognisant of the traffic in bombs which went on between
Benares and the north-west. (For this see also the evidence of
Babu Ram).
In support of most of the above facts there is corroboration of
an unimpeachable character. No. 10 rests on the evidence of
Bibhuti but there are so many circumstances which go to
support it that we have no doubt of its truth.
(13) There is also strong reason to believe thast he paid a visit in
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 435
 January 1915 to Amritsar, where he was paid Rs. 500 for the
purposes of the conspiracy by the Lahore approver Sucha Singh.
1. To establish Sachin’s connexion with the anarchist movement
it is not necessary to go beyond the articles found at the two searches of
his house and the life of Mazzini which is admittedly his property. A
man who keeps in his house copies of the proscribed Jugantar newspaper
and photographs of political murderers like Khudi Ram Bose and Satyendra
Nath Bose may safely be presumed to hold similar views. Mr. Scott
O’Connor’s account of Sachin’s arrest leaves no doubt that he and Bibhuti
were preparing seditious leaflets for the post at the time of their arrest.
Seditious is indeed a mild name to apply to these publications (Exs. 23
and 25) which openly deplore the failure of the projected rising at Lahore,
threaten severe reprisals against officers of the C.I.D. and assert their
intention of committing robberies and decoities for the purpose of
obtaining funds, and declare that a colossal revolution is again in
preparation. But by far the most valuable document throwing light on
the methods of Sachin and his party is the marked and annotated life of
Mazzini (Ex. 62) bearing Sachin’s name on the title page, which was
found at the search of the house of Bankim, accused. Sachin does not
indeed admit that the annotations are his but there is, as will be seen,
little room for doubt that in fact they are. On page 24 against the sentence
“if the next revolution was to fare better, it must have these younger
men to captain it” there is a note in pencil” younger men better than
middle-aged.” The note was made with revolution in view because we
find a note on page 29. “But the programme may not include the form of
Government after revolution” as modifying the remark in the book “It
was this want of a positive programme, that was, he thought, largely
responsible for the failure of the Carbonari”. On page 34 there are
underlined sentences with a pencil note on the margin “Education through
writings”. The underlined sentences are “Its writings, smuggled into
every corner of the land, moved many a young thinker to a passionate
resolve, that bore its fruit in after time.” Time and again the defence
counsel, Mr. Chaterji, poured ridicule on the idea that any one could
expect revolution to follow the distribution of a few seditious leaflets.
The matter seemed so absurd to him that he asked the Court to conclude
that this distribution must be the invention of the police because no sane
person could hope to achieve a revolutionary end by such insufficient
means. The underlining of the sentence on page 34 of the book and the
436 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
pencil note made by Sachin are a sufficient answer to the counsel’s
argument. The Indian anarchist’s idea that insufficiency of material and
men need not deter them from attaining their object of revolution is
further evidenced by the underlining of a sentence on page 39 of the
book “Here are we said jacopo Ruffini to his fellow conspirators at Genoa,
5 young, very young men, with but limited means, and we are called on
to do nothing less than overthrow an established Government.” On the
same page is underlined a sentence pregnant with meaning in this case:
“The journal of young Italy was, as he described it, a collection of political
pamphlets.” The sentences underlined on pages 61 and 164meet with
the Indian anarchist’s approval as the justification of an insurrection.
The notes are clearly in the handwriting of Sachin as may be seen by a
comparison of the handwriting with that of the essay Ex. 31. This essay
is in two handwritings and both Bibhuti and Hiranmoy have deposed that
the writing of the portion after the words “live or furious” is in the
handwriting of Sachin. Hiranmoy stated that the pencil notes in the book
are in the handwriting of Sachin. Sachin himself has admitted his
handwriting in Ex. 31. Apart from this there is internal evidence to
prove that the passages were underlined by Sachin because the views
expressed in some of them are in conformity with Sachin’s own action.
Ram Nath has stated that Sachin’s idea was that those who were leading
men among the conspirators should not get killed but if small men got
killed it was of no matter. In view of this it is interesting to find a
marked passage on page 86 which runs — “Are there not things more
important than my head?” he asked here ‘Certainly’ she replied, “but
the man who has not sense enough to keep his head on his shoulders till
something is to be gained by parting from it, has not sense enough to
manage any important matter.” Sachin certainly acted on has not sense
enough to manage any important matter.” Sachin certainly acted on this
view when instead of himself undertaking to shoot Mr. Petrie he tried to
induce Mani Lal and Ram Nath to do so. This detailed examination of
Sachin’s political creed was necessary in order to expose the hollowness
of the charge that this case was a figment of police imagination and to
show how natrually Sachin’s acts, in furtherance of a revolutionary
conspiracy, followed him early opinions.
2. This has already been discussed under the head general
corroboration.
3. When Rash Behari arrived in Benares early in January 1914 he
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 437
found the ground well prepared by Sachindra for the sowing of the seeds
of active hostility to Government. Young men under the influence of
Sachindra were introduced to Rash Behari at a public garden and put
through a particular catechism by Rash Behari to discover their fitness
for the role of anarchists. It is interesting to observe how the master’s
method deposed to by Bibhuti was followed by Sachindra himself in
testing the worth of the approver Ram Nath, who was introduced to him
at Delhi about the end of 1914. Young men with their minds perverted
by revolutionary doctrines used to collect at Rash Behari’s Misri Pokhar
house. Evidence of such meetings is given by Bibhuti and Hiranmoy and
appears in the confession of Annada. Bibhuti has deposed to the leading
part taken by Sachindra, specially his presence at a lecture on arms and
explosives given by Rash Behari and at the explosion of a bomb cap at
this house in November 1914. This latter incident has already been dealt
with under the first head of corroborative evidence. There is no incident
in the whole case regarding which the evidence is more absolutely
convincing. Sachindra has tried to explain away his identification by
Dr. Basu on the ground that he was not called till after the other persons
present and was then placed last in the line, but his statements are directly
contradicted by the Deputy Magistrate who conducted the identification.
4. The justification for this statement may be found on almost every
page of the evidence of all the three Benares approvers.
5. One of the aims of the conspiracy was the collection of arms,
and Sachindra’s attempt to obtain possession of a gun at Moradabad in
August 1914 is in accordance with it. Bibhuti in his confession to the
Magistrate spoke of such an incident at Meerut and the police were able
to obtain details of the occurrence, which really took place at Moradabad.
Kashipado Moitra and his son Panchu Gopal have described what occurred;
as was to be expected the son has concealed the active help which he
probably gave in the matter. Sachindra and Panchu Gopal were friends
and Sachindra went to his friend’s house at Moradabad, where Kashipado
is employed as a sub-engineer on the railway. Sachindra discovered that
one Mr. Matthews of the Loco department was negotiating to sell a gun
to Kashipado. Sachindra and Panchu Gopal sent for this gun through a
servant under pretence that it was wanted by Kashipado, and Sachindra
went off to the station with it. It appears that Panchu Gopal’s mother
got wind of this trickery and promptly sent for her husband who followed
Sachindra to the railway station and recovered the gun which was wrapped
438 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
up in a carpet. Mr. James, Railway Sanitary Inspector, and Mr. Matthews
bear out various incidents in the story with which they are connected.
Kashipado failed to identify Sachindra in Court but considering the the
time which has elapsed this was not strange. To our minds this is one
more instance of the bona fide manner in which the prosecution case has
been prepared by Mr. Sands and other officers working under his direction
and falsifies vague charges of bogus identification made by the defence.
If any embroidery were intended it would have been easy to show
Sachindra to Kashipado a short time prior to the latter’s evidence. Panchu
Gopal knew Saschindra beforehand and has identified him. A feeble
attempt was made by the defence counsel to attribute this incident like
many others to the fertile brain of Inspector Mukerji, the only foundation
for this belief being the fact that the Kashipado met the inspector in
Benares in August 1915. It must be remembered however that this meeting
was after Bibhuti had made hs statement to Mr. Scott O’Connor. The
argument was so weak that the learned counsel, Mr. Chatterji, abandoned
it in the end and urged that the incident must be looked upon as
unconnected with the conspiracy. Knowing as we do what Sachindra’s
position in the conspiracy was in August 1914, we cannot entertain such
an argument and consider it to be certain that Sachindra attempted to
obtain possession of this gun in pursuance of the objects of the conspiracy.
6. In June and October we find Sachindra active in Delhi. In June
Mani Lal met Sachindra at Brindaban and the two went together to Delhi.
The date of this visit is fixed by the incident of their bringing Lachhmi
Narain with them to Benares. Constable Muhammad Abdul Hai has
deposed how Lachhmi Narain escaped out of his surveillance on 5th
June, 1914, at Sahadara railway station. This is described in detail by
Mani Lal at page 43 of the printed record. There is the additional
testimony of the boy Munshi in this connection who deposed that in the
hot weather he was in the service of Panna Lal and carried food for
Sachindra to a dharamsala at Delhi and found Lachhmi Narain with
him. The boy identified both the accused in court. Ram Nath was
introduced to Sachindra by the accused Lachhmi Narain in the month of
October in the Augarwali Gali, and he tested Ram Nath to discover
whether the latter was ready to kill Mr. Petrie and Dina Nath. We have
independent evidence of his visit to Delhi at that time. He put up at the
time at Baijnath’s dharamsala as the guest of Panna Lal. Panna Lal’s
servant Ram Sarup deposed to taking food to Sachindra. In this Court
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 439
he first picked out Rabindra, who has a strong similarity to his brother
Sachindra and stood next to him at the time of the identification, but on
being asked to go down the line he after walking up and down the lane
came back and stopped at Sachindra and pointed him out. This boy of
11 had identified Sachindra at Delhi on 15th July, 1915. Mr. Hadow
has described how the identification took place. He says “The first time
the boy walked up the line he was evidently frightened and just glanced
at the faces and passed on. The District Magistrate told him to go down
the line and look again and then he stopped before Sachindra as if
fascinated. He took a step forward and then stepped back until finally
after about two minutes he went forward and touched him.” The learned
counsel for the defence was inclined to ridicule this fascination and fear
exercised by Sachindra but we ourselves had before us an example thereof
in a much older person Durgadan witness when he was asked to identify
Sachindra in Court. The note made by the Court at the time was “After
the witness had pointed out Sachindra it was noticed by the Court that he
showed considerable hesitation before touching him when asked to do so
and appeared to be afraid”. As regards this identification Mr. Hadow
was under the impression that some outside Bengalis were placed in a
line with Sachindra. He made such a statement on 21st December, 1914,
but corrected himself next day after learning from a Sub-Inspector that
such was not the case. Much was made of this by the defence and it was
argued by Mr. Chatterji that European officers were taken in by their
Indian subordinates. The counsel, however, overlooked the answer that
one of the subordinate Indian officers would not have corrected Mr.
Hadow’s mistake if in the intention of the subordinate officers was to
deceive. During the arguments Mr. Chatterji mentioned more than once
that this was the first time he was permitted to look behind the scenes
into police manipulations. The fact is that under the stern directions of
Mr. Sands no attempt was made to conceal any incident whatsoever
from this Court and what Mr. Chatterji termed workings behind the
scenes were merely omissions and mistakes disclosed before us without
reservation with the laudable intention of putting before us every possible
material whether favourable to the prosecution or not which may enable
this Court to arrive at a correct decision. Mr. Chatterji exempted European
officers from his criticism but he had nothing good to say of the Indian
officers of the same force. We may take this opportunity to state
embphatically that in our opinion all the police officers without distinctions
440 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
have acted in the most straightforward manner and have not given us the
slightest reason to suspect their honesty. In a long enquiry of this nature
started under the direction of several police officers, mistakes may have
been committed through excess of zeal and there may have been some
omissions but of any attempt at perversion of truth there was none.
7. Sachin’s attempt at tampering with the Indian troops may be
briefly described here and a very few words will be sufficient to show
how satisfactorily the charge under section 131 has been proved against
him. Bibhuti has stated how after the departure of Rash Behari from
Benares in January 1915 Preonath and he first went to the native infantry
lines in Benares. They got in touch with one Jaleshwar Singh and
subsequently took Sachin to Jaleshwar Singh. At that interview Sachin
told Jaleshwar Singh that he had been to Meerut and Delhi to seduce
troops and requested Havildar to take leave and see the troops at those
places himself. Subsequently Bibhuti, Preonath and Sachin met Dilla
Singh, another Havildar of the 7th Rajputs, and also Puran Singh. Shortly
before the 21st of February, Sachin sent Bibhuti to Dinapore to seduce
the troops there. There cannot be the slightest doubt of attempts made to
seduce the men of the 7th Rajputs here though we have not considered
Dilla Singh to be a witness of such reliability as would justify our
convicting the accused persons on his uncorroborated testimony. We
have no doubt in our mind as to Dilla Singh’s complicity in the conspiracy.
One of the Lahore conspirtors Sucha Singh who subsequently became an
approver was brought to Benares on 2nd April, and picked Dilla Singh
out at a parade of the troops of the 7th and 11th Rajputs. We have
elsewhere discussed how the Lahore approvers have gone back on their
previous statements and Sucha Singh’s persistence in this Court that
Dharam Singh accused and not Dilla Singh was the person whom he
indentified at the parade has been commented upon. The truth of Bibhuti’s
testimony about tampering with troops is borne out by his identifying
Dilla Singh before Mr. Lambert, Collector, Benares, on 14th September,
Jaleshwar Singh and Puran Singh at the Fort in Delhi at the 11th
identification in December, deposed to by Mr. Hadow and Havildar
Kaku Singh of the 89th Punjabs at Dinapore at a parade of all the non-
commissioned officers and drill instructors in the presence of Capt. Stuart
on 13th October.
8. Ram Nath and Shankar Lal have deposed to the visit of Sachindra
and Partab accused to Delhi on the 25th or 26th of March. Ram Nath
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 441
has deposed how during that visit they consulted together at the house of
Ganeshi Lal and proposed to murder some police officers. Ram Nath
and Shankar Lal did not know the names of Sachindra and Partab at the
time and by mistake believed that their names were N.N. Banerji and
Hiranmoy. Ram Nath has explained how the mistake arose. Lachhmi
Narain had introduced Sachindra to Ram Nath in October 1914 and
subsequently Ram Nath had seen Lachhmi Narain addressing letters to
N.N. Banerji. This made Ram Nath jump to the conclusion that the
name of the stranger introduced to him in October 1914 was N.N. Banerji
and when in March 1915 Lachhmi Narain told him that the stranger and
Hiranmoy were coming to Delhi he thought that Sachindra and Partab
were N.N. Banerji and Hiranmoy. Both the approvers identified
Sachindra and Partab in Delhi; Sachindra’s identification is the ninth of
15th July and Partab’s the tenth of 8th August deposed to by Mr. Hadow.
There is no reason to suspect the genuineness of these identifications.
The independent evidence in support of this visit consists of the testimony
of witnesses Habibuddin, Nazir and Mohammad Ismail. Habib picked
out Sachindra at Delhi at the 9th identification deposed to by Mr. Hadow
and he pointed out both Sachindra and Partab here. His evidence is that
these two accused rented a room in a house at Lal Kuan for a month
ending on the 9th Jamadi-us-sani which falls on the 25th of April. The
room must, therefore, have been rented on the 26th or 27th of March.
Nazir was in charge of the room during Habibudin’s absence and deposes
to two men coming to see the room and pointed one of them out here to
be Partab. The defence has tried to prove that Sachindra could not have
been in Delhi on the 26th of March but the attempt has not been successful.
The Serampur witnesses for the defence, Dr. Mukerji, Kunj Bihari
Ghoshain and Bhawani Shankar Roy give approximate dates; from what
Bhawani Shankar says it appears that Sachindra must have left Serampur
within a day or two after the performance of his grandmother’s shraddh
on the 22nd of March. On the 27th of March Mr. Scott. O’Connor
went to scarch Sachindra’s house on information received from a police
constable Sheoratan Dube to the effect that Sachindra was seen in Benares
the day previously, Sheoratan’s report is marked Exhibit 153, and states
that he has received the inforrmation from the Abdul Rahman, who
resided in the street in which Sachindra’s house is situated. Abdul Rahman
has gone away and could not be found. The defence produced another
neighbour Taj Muhammad, who deposes to seeing Sachindra the day
442 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
previous to the search. The evidence is entirely unreliable and does not
disprove the renting of the Lal Kuan room on the 26th or 27th or March.
9. Bibhuti has deposed to the visit to Calcutta to see Rash Behari
and his account will be found on pages 14 and 15 of the printed record.
When Bibhuti met Rash Behari in a room over the Dhurumtollah post
office, the accused Girja Bahu and Sachindra were two of the conspirators
present. The testimony of Natavar is an independent corroboration of
Bibhuti’s evidence. This witness arrived from Calcutta and was brought
to court on 23rd November last and identified in our presence Sachindra
and Girja Babu. He had known Girja Babu beforehand and picked out
Sachindra from his appearance. He identified Rash Behari’s photograph,
Ex. 45, and stated that he had seen the man in the picture Sachindra and
Gijra Babu together about May last at the office of the Northern Circars
Company at No. 27, Dhurumotollah Street on the ground-floor of which
there is a post office. There is further the testimony of Inspr. Mukerji
to the effect that Bibhuti pointed out all the places mentioned by him in
his confession before the District Magistrate in connexion with this visit
to Calcutta.
10. That 21st February had been fixed for a rising and that Sachin
had been engaged in making preparations for this rising by trying to
incite the troops at Benares to rebel are facts which have already been
sufficiently established. That Sachin himself should have been present
on the maidan on the evening of 21st February to await the result of his
efforts is the conduct which under the circumstances we should naturally
expect from him.
11. Just as Sachindra was in touch with the Punjab anarchists he
was also in touch with those in Bengal, Bibhuti deposed to Sachindra’s
connection with Shashanka Mohan Harja through Makhan Babu. This
connection was mentioned in his very first statement to the police. Deb
Narain has borne out this testimony by deposing thast it was he who
introduced Sachindra to Makhan Babu, and Hiranmoy has deposed to
Sachindra’s enquiry about Shashanka in February 1914. Hiramony and
Shashanka were jointly prosecuted in the Raja Bazar bomb case and
Hiranmoy was discharged by the Magistrate. It was after his discharge
in February 1914 that Sachindra made enquiries from him. Annada in
his retracted confession has referred to the meeting between Sachindra
and Shashanka through Makhan Babu. The defence examined Makhan
Babu in order to prove that his aims were purely spiritual for the uplifting
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 443
of his country and that he did not dabble in politics. The value of this
gentleman’s evidence is considerably discounted by the fact that since
August last he has been interned under the Defence of India Act. An
attempt was made to get over this by suggesting that he might be a prefectly
innocent man whom no one would have ever thought of interning but for
the fact that Bibhuti had mentioned his name. Unfortunately for the
defence the witness himself disposed of this suggestion by stating in
cross-examination that the police must have been anxious to implicate
him and therefore tutored Bibhuti to mention his name. The further
interesting fact emerged in the witness’s cross-examination that a school
which he founded has had the misfortune to employ as teachers several
persons who were implicated in the Dacca and Barisal conspiracy cases.
The facts which justify this statement fill so large a portion of this
judgement that any detailed discussion here would be out place. Except
the despatch of bombs to Meerut on March 21 when Sachin was at Calcutta
there is hardly an incident connected with bombs or ammunition in which
Saschindra is not concerned. He and the absconder Narendra Nath are
the two persons from whom Babu Ram usually received his orders. He
figures in connexion with the explosion, the receipt of the parcel of
cartridges, and the despatch of bombs to Meerutt, all of which have been
discussed in detail. At Moradabad he executed a little enterprise of his
own for the purpose of obtaining arms.
13. Mula Singh, an approver in the Lahore conspiracy case,
indentified Sachindra on 7th July last at the Anarkali police station, Lahore,
in the presence of Mr. Hare Scott, S.P., as the person to whom he paid
Rs. 500 for the preparation of bombs. He had mentioned the name of
Sanyal in his examination before the Lahore Court. In this Court, while
adhering to his evidence as to the payment, he pretended for the first
time that he had made a mistake and that the man to whom he had paid
the money was a Mahammadan. Standing by itself the court might have
believed that the witness had made a mistake and honestly deposed to it
in this Court to prevent injustice. But this incident in connexion with
the Lahore approvers is not a single one of its kind. Of the other two
approvers Sucha Singh had picked out the approver Dilla Singh as the
person whom he met here when he attempted to seduce the sepoys of the
7th Rajputs and Amar Singh was identified by the approver Mani Lal in
the presence of Inspr. Khan Ahmad Khan. Dilla Singh was picked out at
a parade of all troops in the presence of military and police officers. In
444 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
this Court Sucha Singh insisted that the man pointed out by him was the
prisoner Dharam Singh, while Amar Singh made out that at the
identification by Mani Lal he was the only person without a turban and
could be easily distinguished by a stranger in consquence. The fact that
all the three Lahore approvers went back on their statements in order to
help the defence raises a presumption that they are not telling the truth
and are actuated by motives of fear or of sympathy with the accused or of
some dissatisfaction as regards the treatment received by them subsequently
to their confessions. We trust the first identification of Sachindra by
Mula Singh, and hold this accused’s connection with the Lahore
conspirators is established.
Accused has chosen to take the line of denying everything. He
denies that he has ever been to Delhi, to Amritsar, to Lahore, or to
Moradabad, that he ever met Dr. Bose and that he ever knew either
Mani Lal or the accused Partab Singh. His explanation of the
identification by Dr. Bose we have already seen to be false. He has
offered no explanation of the other identifications, though his counsel
has done so; but these identifications, to which Mr. Hadow has deposed,
were conducted with every precaution and they contain circumstances
which stamp them unmistakeably as genuine. Accused himself never
made any objection to their fairness at the time.
We have dealt with at special length the case of Saschindra because
we regard him as infinitely the most dangerous of the accused before us.
He was Rash Behari’s chosen lieutenant in Benares and his activities
have had both a wider and a more sinister character than those of the
other accused. We find him at one time in Calcutta; at another at Lahore
or Amritsar. There are elements in his character which might have made
him a useful and even a noble member of society, as for instance his
joining the band of volunteer relief workers in the Damodar floods. The
perverted elements have however gained the upper hand and he has become
an anarchist of a peculiarly dangerous type, the type of man who incites
others to deeds of violence while keeping in the background himself. No
sentence short of transportation for life would be at all adequate in his
case. We confict him on the charges under section 121A and 131, I.P.C.;
under the former section of conspiring to wage war against the King and
to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India, and under the
latter of attempting to seduce the soldiers of the 7th Rajputs from their
allegiance. We pass concurrent sentences of transportation for life under
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 445
each section.
We further convict him in view of the facts stated under heads 5
and 12 above of collecting arms and ammunition with the intention of
waging war against the King under section 122, I.P.C. and under that
section also we pass sentences of transportation for life to run concurrently
with the sentence under the other charges, and further direct as required
by section 122 that he do forfeit all his property.
15. — SURENDRA NATH MUKERJI
We have devoted anxious care to the consideration of the case against
this accused. He says that he is 15 and does not look more, but the acts of
violence proved against him are such as contrast with his youth. On 27th
September, 1914, when the accused could have been barely 14 he was
arrested on the Moghal Sarai railway platform with a revolver in his
possession and there is evidence on the record which assures us that two
months later his hand was considerably injured by the explosion of a
bomb. The boy denies possessing the revolver, but apart from the fact of
his conviction by a competent Court, Sgt. Duggan’s statement has struck
us as genuine and quite consonant with the character we believe this
youth to possess. The evidence of Dr. Govind Charan Sircar has sastisfied
us that the wounds admittedly received by the accused were the result of
a bomb explosion and not of the explosion of a cracker as is alleged by
the defence. It is difficult to believe that these two acts of violence could
be isolasted acts unconnected with the conspiracy of whose existence in
Benares in September and November 1914, we are well assured. We
think however thast there is no direct evidence of the accused being a
member of the conspiracy. Bibhuti has nowhere directly stated that
Surendra Nath was a member of the conspiracy. We gather this indirectly
from his reference to one Ramdeo about whom he has stated that he was
enlisted by the accused Surendra Nath in the party. Jaimangal Pande of
Dhakua deposed that he had seen the accused in village Dhakua where
Ramdeo lives and such is also the testimony of Dwarka of Srikantpur.
This evidence does not establish any connection between the accused and
Ramdeo, and as Ramdeo is not in this trial and Bibhuti was unable to
identify him we cannot presume that he was one of the conspirators. It is
possible that Bibhuti has been influenced by the accused’s extreme youth
446 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
and in consequence refrained from deposing to the accused’s direct concern
with the conspiracy. The case of this accused is on the border line and it
is with some hesitation that we acquit him of the offences charged against
him and order his release. We trust that even now the youth’s parents of
guardians would bestir themselves, exercise effective control over him
and save him from the dire influences which are otherwise sure to work
his ruin.
18. — GIRJA BABU ALIAS NAGENDRA NATH DATTA
This accused belongs to Eastern Bengal and was arrested by S.I.
Shah Abdul Rahman on 30th October at the Nattore railway station.
There were in his possession at the time Rs. 520 mostly in ten-rupee
notes and a railway map of India. Bibhuti met him at the interview with
Rash Behari over the Dhurumtollah post office in Calcutta about May
last. At that interview Rash Behari expressed his intention of going to
some hills for two years and said that Girija Babu was a leader of Eastern
Bengal and would see to the conspriracy work during Rash Behari’s
absence. At that interview Rash Behari gave Girja Babu a manuscript
leaflet to publish and Bibhuti has deposed that the contents of Ex. 23,
which was seized at the time of his and Sachin’s arrest, were the same as
those of the manuscript which Rash Behari gave to Girja Babu. This
statement of Bibhuti, if believed, amply proves Girja Babu’s complicity
in the conspiracy and the evidence though slight is very definite. Applying
the usual test to the testimony of an approver we find ample independent
corroboration of the testimony. Bibhuti identified Girja Babu at the District
Jail in the presence of Mr. Hamilton. The accused was placed among 11
men who were Bengalis from the city and Bibhuti picked him out at
once. The accused denies acquiaintance with Bibhuti; but his explanation
regarding the identification is belated and inadequate. What he stated
here was: “I was dressed in a dirty dress and there were marks of ropes
over my shirt and none of the persons who were made to stand with me
had beards”. As regards his appearance Mr. Hamilton stasted. “The
Bengalis from outside did not look better groomed than the accused. He
was much better groomed than he is now. I do not think that he could
have been identified through looking dishevelled.” Not one question
was put to Mr. Hamilton regarding hair on the face of the other Bengalis
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 447
placed in a line with the accused, so that accused’s allegation in his There were all told twenty four accused in this case. Nine of these
statement that he was the only person with a beard cannot be accepted as absconded. One (accused no. 18) was subsequently arrested and placed
true. The accused’s counsel made a point based on the testimony of Shah on his trial with the others and the prosecution of accused no. 6, Rao
Abdul Rahman that the accused could easily be identified from his Gopal Singh of Karwa, was withdrawn by Government. The trail
descriptive roll known to the police. The S.I. in this Court tried to make therefore, proceeded against fifteen accused with the results shown
out that he was so clever that he at once recognised the accused out of a below:—
crowd of passengers and put his hand on him. First of all there is no 1. Annada 3 years’ rigrous imprisonment
2. Bankim Chandra Mitra Ditto
evidence that any descriptive roll of the accused was read over to Bibhuti 3. Damodar Sarup alias Masterji 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
before the identification, and secondly we are not prepared to believe 4. Dharam Singh Acquitted
that the S.I. is as clever as he has represented himself to be in this Court. 5. Ganeshi Lal 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
6. Rao Gopa Singh of Karwa Prosecution withdrawn.
Possibly he had with him some one who knew the accused by appearance 7. Jitendra Nath Sasnyal 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
or he must have made several inquiries among the passengers before 8. Jadunath Singh Acquitted.
9. Kalipado Mukerji 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
laying his hand on the prisoner. We feel certain that the identification 10 . Lachmi Narain 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
was genuine. The manner in which Bibhuti picked out in Court Hunurkar 11 . Nalini Mohan Mukerji Ditto
whom he had only seen twice out of a number of Mahrattas assured us of 12 . Partab Singh Ditto
13 . Rabindra Nath Sanyal Acquitted
his ability to remember faces of persons reen by him only occasionally a 14 . Sachindra Nath Sanyal Transportation for life and forfeiture
long time ago. The next piece of corroboration is the testimony of the of property.
witness Natavar who knew the accused before and deposed that he had 15 . Surendra Nath Mukerji Acquitted.
18 . Girja Babu alias Nagendra Nath Dutta 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a
seen the accused in the company of two other men in a room over the fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment
Dhurumtollah post office about May last. He identified Sachindra in our of the fine to undergo an additional 9
months’ imprisonment.
presence in Court as one of the two men and recognised the photograph, i.e. 1 to transportation for life and forfeiture of all his property.
Ex. 45, of Rash Behari as that of the other man seen by him in Girja 2 to 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Bab’s company. Finally, the possession of such a large sum of money as 1 to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.
3 to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
the time of his arrest is suspicious and his inability to account for it raises 3 to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
the presumption that it may be money belonging to the conspiracy 1 to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
orgainzation. He explained that he had the money with him to start a and 4 were acquireed.
Total..15
new business at Rajashahi, but when he admits that he did not know what plus 1 against whom prosecution was withdrawn.
kind of business he intended to start, it appears highly improbable that 2. A copy of the judgement may be sent to the India Office. Draft
he would carry with him such a large sum for such an indefinite purpose. submitted. After issue, Director, Criminal Intelligence, and His
We convict him of an offence under section 121A and sentence Excellency may see.
him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500 (five A.L., — 7.3.16
hundred) which may be recovered from the property found on him at the S.R. HIGNELL. — 8.3.16
time of his arrest. In the event of non-recovery of the fine he will Issue and then resubmit with two spare copies of the judgement.
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of nine months. Send one spare copy to Director, Criminal Intelligence, meanwhile.
S.R. DANIELS, H. WHEELER, — 8.3.16
B.J. DALAL, Letter to the India Office, No. 932, dated the 9th March 1916. Pro
SITLA PRASAD BAJPEYI. No. 471.
Issued and resubmitted. Two spare copies of the judgement are
448 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 449
placed below. One copy has been sent to Director, Criminal Intelligence.
A.L., — 14.3.16
S.R. HIGNELL, — 14.3.16.
I have kept one spare copy for perusal and submit the other. POSTSCRIPT:
H.WHEELER, — 14.3.16. (Source : File No : May, 1918, 36, Deposit)
R.H. C[RADDOCK], — 25.4.16
Rao Gopal Singh Tazimi Istim Radar of Kharva, is a Istim Radar
of Ajmer Distt. He was educated at Mayo College Ajmer, and became a
member of the Bharat Dharma Mohamandal of Banaras about 1898.
Just before the arrival of His Majesty the King in India he sent an
SUMMARY anonymous letter to the Maharana of Udaipur urging him not to attend
the Delhi Durbar. He reminded the Maharana that his ancestors had
An important prosecution — known as the Benares Conspiracy Case never bowed to Moghul Kings and that he would disgrace his race if he
— was recently concluded before a Special Tribunal (appointed under made obeisance to a Feringhi Monarch.
the Defence of India Act.) 2. It may be mentioned here that the Bharat Dharma Mohamandal
The results are summarised in the Home Department office note of institution founded in 1884, is, in itself, a purely religious one but for a
the 7th March. period of its existence the persons who were mainly responsible for its
The judgement is submitted for His Excellency’s perusal. management were tainted, and through their influence the society was
H. WHEELER, — 26.4.16. made use of by members of the revolutionary party to screen their actions.
C[HELMSFORD] — 29.4.16 When Gyananda Swami acted for some time as secretary to the society,
he obtained complete control over its working, and it was then for the
first time that there was any trace of suspicion againt the society on
Exd. by — E.A. account of its political leanings.
49 H.D. 3. In 1908 Gyananda Swami accompanied by four disciples made a
tour of the Princely States in Central India. It is believed that during this
time the Swami made proposals for a scheme of compulsory religious
education. There is reason to believe that this is the origin of the educational
schemes in accordance with which Arjan Lal Sethi and Kesri Singh (the
former impriosned by order of the Maharaja of Jaipur and the latter
convicted in the Kotah murder case) started schools in Rajputana based on
the Swami’s proposals. From the Swami’s tour dates the strong connection
that was found subsequently to exist between certain disaffected Rajputs in
Rajputana and persons connected with the Bharat Dharma Mohamandal
at Benares. The notorious Bishen Datt who was subsequently convicted in
the Arrah Temple murder case was in all probability one of the four disciples
who accompanied Gyananda. He was a preacher of the Bharat Dharma
Mohamandal and the Sanatan Dharma and it was he who was largely
responsible for the progress of the Revolutionary Movement in Rajputana.

450 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 451
Gyananda besides being a friend of Bishen Datt on one side, was also in
close touch with the disaffected leaders in Benares.
4. In 1907 Rao Gopal Singh, who was taking a keen interest in the
educational schemes of Kesri Singh and Arjan Lal Sethi, paid for the
education of six lads in the D. A. V. Schools in Ajmer. To Som Datt
alias Trebani alias Laheri, one of the six lads, he expressed regret that
there was no one to work in Rajputana on the Bengal lines and he asked
him to learn how to shoot.
5. In 1908 or 1909 through Madan Mohan Malaviya he employed
Bishen Datt to work in connection with the educational movement in
Jodhpur and the Ajmer District. Gopal Singh first met Kesri Singh at the
house of Hari Singh of Bassi in Jaipur about 1900.
6. After the death of Sardar Singh, the late Maharaja of Jodhpur,
Gopal Singh went to Jodhpur with Kesri Singh and tried to get the
Jagirdars to interest themselves in the so-called Rajput Charan Scheme.
Previous to this he had deputed Bishen Datt and others to tour about
Marwar on the same errand.
7. Gopal Singh’s introduction to the Lahore and Delhi conspirators
was effected by Pandit Balkrishna, one of the most prominent members
of the Delhi branch of the Lahore Conpiracy. Apparently they became
acquainted by both of them respecting the same spiritual preceptor, one
Swami Brahma Nath of Etawah; it is as well to mention here that there is
nothing to show that this Swami was in any way connected with the
conspiracy.
8. The statements made by Mani Lal, Ram Nath and B.B. Haldar
approvers in the Benares Conspiracy Case and other disclosures at Delhi
during the police investigation, brought to light a Rajputana branch of
the Lahore-Delhi conspiracy. The first occasion of Gopal Singh being
mentioned in connection with the conspiracy was on the 16th February,
1915. Mani Lal had been sent by the notorious Rash Bihari Bose from
Lahore to advise the conspirators in Delhi that he had changed the date
for the rising from the 21st to the 19th February. On hearing this Ram
Nath suggested to Mani Lal that he should go to Rajputana to see a chief
who was ready to join. Ram Nath took Mani Lal to Pundit Balkrishna of
Delhi who told him of the Thakur of Kharwa, gave him a password and
sent him off to the Thakur with a revolutionary flag, some wire cutters
and seditious leaflets.
9. Mani Lal proceeded to Kharwa where he had an interview with
452 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
the Thakur, made over the articles to the latter, wrote out a Hindi
inflammatory leaflet at the Thakur’s dictation, and was promised help.
From Kharwa Mani Lal proceeded to Lahore and reported to Rash Behari
what he had done. On the 13th March 1915, at Benares in accordance
with directions from Rash Behari two of the conspirators introduced
Damodar alias Masterji to Mani Lal and told the latter to take Damodar
to the Rao Sahib of Kharwa.
10. They went via Delhi to Kharwa on the 18th March, 1915, and
at an interview with the Thakur at which he said he was dissatisfied with
the state of affairs as they stood and expressed his willingness to provide
5,000 men for a rising provided he could procure money and arms to
equip them. He spoke of and showed a type-written letter which he said
had been received by him from the Agent to the Governor General, and
which was calling him to account for his connection with the Arrah Murder
Case and Bishen Datt. Such a letter was sent to the Thakur by the
Commissioner of Ajmer. There was also talk of the Thakur affording
shelter to some important man connected with the conspiracy and this he
agreed to do.
11. The two men had a second interview with the Thakur the same
day and then Mani Lal went away leaving Damodar behind. Damodar is
said to have visited the Thakur alone and in response to a request made
by the former for revolvers the Thakur had two brought but as one of
one them was out of repair it was kept back while the other was made
over to Damodar.
12. Kesri Singh, the man referred to in paragraphs 3 and 6, is the
father of Partab Singh who was arrested on suspicion in the Arrah Temple
Murder Case and who was one of the conspirators convicted in the Benares
Conspiracy Case. There can be little doubt that Partab Singh was in
touch with the Thakur of Kharwa.
13. It will thus be seen that there was strong connection between
Rajputana and Delhi and that the Thakur was undoubtedly one of the
conspirators although through lack of opportunity he may not have played
a very important part. In consequence of what was brought to light
regarding his doings the Thakur was interned at Todgarh in the Ajmer
District under the Defence of India Rules in June 1915. A fortnight later
he absconded from Todgarh and was at large for some time before he was
rearrested in August 1915 by Mr. Kaye and a party of police sent in persuit
of him. He was at first prepared to offer a violent resistance, but was
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 453
eventually persuaded to surrender himself peacefully to the police. He was
taken to Ajmer where he was tried for committing a breach of the order
passed under the Defence of India Act and sentenced to two years’ simple
imprisonment. While in the Ajmer Jail he tried to instill seditious ideas
into the minds of certain of his fellow prisoners. From this it would appear
that his confinement in jail, far from exercising a chastening influence,
seems only to have embittered his mind against Government.
14. In October 1915 Gopal Singh was sent up for trial in Benares
with 14 other accused charged with offence under sections 121, 121A,
122 and 131 of the Indian Penal Code, but at an early stage of the
proceedings in court the prosecution of the case against him was withdrawn
by Government and he was discharged. The Commissioners who tried
the case recorded that the prosecution was withdrawn for special reasons
and that the withdrawal in no way implied any doubt of his complicity
on the part of the Crown.
15. The Kharwa Estate was attached under Bengal Regulation III of
1818 and is now under the management of the Court of Wards. On the
expiry of the sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment passed on Gopal
Singh a warrant was issued under Bengal Regulation III of 1818 directing
him to reside at Tihur in the Shajahanpur District in the United Provinces.
16. It would appear that the Thakur who is a very vain and weak
individual succumbed to flattery and allowed himself to be carried away
and made use of by those who exercised an evil influence over him.
H. G. RICHARDSON,
Inspector-General of Railway Police and
Police Assistant to the Agent to the Governor-General,
Dated Abu, Rajputana.
the 24th March 1918.
Note on Rao Gopal Singh of Kharwa
and his connection with the Benares Conspiracy.
(Prepared from United Provinces records only.)
According to evidence given in the Benares Conspiracy Case by
454 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Ram Nath, Mani Lal and Bibhuti Bhushan Haldar, Roa Gopal Singh,
Thakur of Kharwa, was a member of the Benares conspiracy. Mani Lal
was sent by Rash Bihari from Lahore to tell the conspirators in Delhi that
he had changed the date for the revolution from 21st to 19th February,
1915. Mani Lal told Ram Nath, who suggested that instead of going on
to Multan as directed he should go to Rajputana to see the chief who was
ready to join. Ram Nath took Mani Lal to Pandit Balkrishan of Delhi,
who told him of the Thakur of Kharwa, gave him a password and sent
him to the Thakur with a revolutionary flag, some wire cutters and some
seditious leaflets. Mani Lal went to Kharwa and interviewed the Thakur
and made over these articles to him. He also wrote out an inflammatory
Hindi leaflet at the direction of the Thakur who promised to provide
5,000 men for the rising provided that he could procure money to arm
and equip them.
On March 13, in Benares, at the direction of Rash Bihari, Bibhuti
Bhushan Haldar and Priya Nath introduced Damodar Sarup to Mani Lal
and told the latter to take Damodar to the Rao Sahib of Kharwa. They
travelled via Delhi, arrived at Kharwa on March 18 and interviewed the
Thakur that afternoon. The Thakur expressed dissatisfaction with the
present state of things and promised to help the revolution. He showed
them a type-written letter which he had received from the Agent to the
Governor-General, calling him to account for his connection with the
Arrah Murder Case and with Bishan Datt. The Thakur agreed to give
shelter to some important men.
The Government of India considered that the prosecution of the
Thakar in the Banaras Case should be withdrawan because Mr. Kaye. (I.
G. Police Rajputana) had said something which might be interpreted as
in the nature of an assurance of immunity.
[Note : Vide internment order of July 1915, Thakur Gopal Singh of
Kharwa, Ajmer was absconding and has not yet been arrested
(Para ; 14 of Criminal Intelligence’s weekly report Dated 27th
July 1915)
Source : Bhai Nahar Singh: “Struggle For Free Hindustan” (Calendar
of Political Events 1907-1918), p. 245, Atlantic Publishers,
New Delhi.]
Benares Conspiracy Case – I / 455
BENARES CONSPIRACY CASE
(SUPPLEMENTARY)
 PROCEEDING OF THE
HOME DEPARTMENT, SEPTEMBER 1918.

Judgement of the Special Tribunal in the Supplemenary Benares

Conspiracy Case,

No. 1723, dated Simla, the Ist September, 1918.

From – The HON’BLE MR. S. R. IRPINEL, C.I. E., I.C.S.,

Secretary to the Government of India, Home Department.

To – SIR T.W. HOLDERNESS K.C.F., K.C.S.,

His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India.

With reference to the Home Department letter no. 1215, dated the
12th June 1918, I am directed to forward for the information of the
Secretary of State a copy of the judgement of the Special Tribunal in the
Supplementary Benares Conspiracy Case.

LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

1. Mr. C. E. W, Sands, C.I.D., Special Branch.

2. Bibhuti Bhusan Haldar.
3. Mr. Scott O’Conor, Superintendent of Police, Benares.
4. Babu Ram.
5. Mani Lal.
6. Bhagwan Singh.
7. Chandrika Prasad.
8. Mr. A. R. Gill.
9. Hiranmoy Banarji.
10. Mr. J.K. Mukharji, Deputy Superintendent, Police C.I.D.

458 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 459
 11. Jugendra Chandra Gupta, Sub-Inspector, Police, I.B., C.I.D.
12. Mr. C.E.W, Sands, C.I.D., Special Branch.
13. J.N. Banarji, Inspector of Police, C.I.D.
14. Satya Passanna Chatterji JUDGMENT
15. Dilla Singh.
16. Aklo Ram Kasari, Head Constable, Kamrup, Assam.
PART I.
B.J. DALAL. GENERAL
16-5-1918. President.
At this supplementary trial to accused persons –
(1) Narendra Nath Banerji,
(2) Preonath Bhattacharji,
have been tried on charges under Sections 121A, 121, 122, and 131,
Indian Penal Code. Mr. Alston on behalf of the prosecution has not
pressed for a conviction under Section 121, so the charges to be considered
will be three in number. The prisoners were absconding at the time of
the last trial when eleven members of the conspiracy were convicted on
14th February, 1916, principally under Section 121A, and sentenced to
various terms of imprisonment by a Special Tribunal, of which two of
the present Commissioners were members. In view of the findings of
that Tribunal the learned pleaders for the defence conceded the fact of
the existence of a conspiracy to overawe by means of criminal force or
the show of criminal force the Government of India. The only question
at issue in this trial therefore is whether the accused were members of the
conspiracy or not. For this reason the trial was considerably shortened.
Charges were framed on the 9th of May, and on the 11th the accused’s
learned pleaders declared that no defence evidence would be produced.
Subsequently on the 14th, after their statements were recorded, the
prisoners were called upon to enter on their defence and they declined to
produce any evidence.
The fifteen witnesses examined at this trial on behalf of the
prosecution fall into three groups :—
(1) Approvers,
(2) Police Officers,
(3) Independent witnesses to connect the prisoners with certain
houses used by the conspirators.
Besides the statements of these witnesses there is the evidence of
the identification of the prisoners by the approvers and other witnesses
460 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 461
before the Deputy Magistrate Mr. Gill (P. W.8) and before the Tribunal.
The approvers are :-
Bibhute Bhusan Haldar (P. W.2).
Babu Ram (P. W.4).
Mani Lal (P. W.5).
Hiranmoy Banerji (P. W.9).
Dila Singh (P. W. 15).
Hiramony Banerji is not an approver in the sense of an implicated
person making a statement on grant of a pardon. He was one of the
persons discharged by the Tribunal at the original trial and was
examined as a witness at that trial subsequently. The evidentiary value of
his statement however is on a level with that of a statement by an approver
because he was one of the members of the Young Men’s Association and
joined the inner circle which advocated revolutionary methods. He grew
faint-hearted and left at an early date the society of young conspirators.
At the previous trial it was proved that the two accused persons on their
trial here at present were absconding, and there was no immediate prospect
at the time of arresting them. Evidence of witnesses was recorded at the
previous trial after such proof and a finding by the Tribunal in accordance
therewith. The provisions of Section 512, Criminal Procedure Code,
are therefore applicable, and any deposition made at the former trial
may be given in evidence against the two prisoners if the deponent cannot
be produced at this trial without an amount of delay, expense or
inconvenience which, under the circumstances, would be unreasonable.
On a statement made by Mr. Sands of the C.I.D., Special branch, we
were of opinion that to send for Bibhuti Bhusan Haldar from one of the
war areas where he is doing useful war work would be unreasonable and
admitted his statement of the previous trial against the present accused.
The statement was read over in court by us and formally brought on the
record of this case. Though Bibhuti was not present, it is admitted by the
defence that the Narendra and Preonath mentioned by him in his statement
at the former trial were the accused now before the court.
The conspiracy at Benares was part of a large movement having
ramifications in Bengal and in the Punjab, Bibhuti deposes to connection
with Makhan Babu and Sasanka Mohan Hajra, anarchists of Bengal and
Mani Lal with a dangerous movement in the Punjab and with an attempt
to seduce persons in Central India from their allegiance. The activities
of the conspirators in Benares were confined to —
462 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
(1) Discussion of revolutionary methods for the overturning of
the British Government in secret meetings of the society which
seceded from the Young Men’s Association under the
leadership of Sachindra Nath Sanyal.
(2) Distribution of seditious literature.
(3) Attempt at seduction of troops here, at Ramnagar, and in
Dinapur.
(4) Receipt from Bengal storage here, and dispatch to the Punjab
of bombs, pistols, and ammunition.
The Young Men’s Association started in 1912 and to which students
of various local schools belonged, appears to be the foundation for the
spread of revolutionary ideas among boys. There was an inner circle
consisting of selected members among whom moral classes were held;
seditious matters were discussed at these classes and moral sayings in the
Gita were perverted by lecturers to inculcate sedition in young minds.
This mental debasement alone did not suit the purposes of the founder of
the Association Sachindra Nath Sanyal. The prisoners and others seceded
from the Young Men’s Association with Sachindra whose objection to
the society was that it merely talked and did nothing. The object of
Sachindra was to carry out in these provinces work similar to that of the
anarchists in Bengal. Hiramony says that the object which this new society
held in view was to foment rebellion to India. According to Bibhuti the
new party wanted to join the Bengal anarchists and with their help get
explosives and arms. The means adopted for the fomenting of rebellion
are the distribution of seditious literature, the seduction of troops, and
the collection of arms and ammunition. The approvers have described in
detail how seditious leaflets were left at various local schools and
institutions and pasted on walls, what attempts were made to seduce
troops in Benares, Ramnagar and Dinapur, and how bombs, pistols, and
ammunition were brought by conspirators from Bengal and Central India,
stored at Babu Ram’s house and dispatched to the Punjab by the hands of
other conspirators.
APPROVERS.
The statements of Bibhuti, Mani Lal, Babu Ram, and Hiranmoy
disclose the strong influence of Rash Behari over the entire local
Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 463
movement. This notorious conspirator arrived here about the beginning
of 1914 and lived here from February to November. Mani Lal and Babu
Ram made their first statements to the police at about the same time at
Delhi and probably had opportunities of consulting together. The
statements of Bibhui, Dilla Singh, and Hiranmoy were recorded quite
independently in Benares and in Simla. In this case therefore the statements
of approvers are of great value because the statements made independently
and without collaboration agree in important details. A few points of
agreement may be examined here. A house was rented for Rash Behari at
Misri Pokhra behind the Jageshwar Press, and there on the night of 18th
November, 1914 two bomb caps which Rash Behari was examining
exploded injuring him severely and Sachindra Nath slightly. The approver
Bibhuti was present at the time and describes the incident at page 6, line
35 of the previous trial. According to Bibhuti Narendra was present.
This description may be compared with Babu Ram’s account of his hearing
a very loud report while he waited outside the house of Narendra.
Narendra’s residential house and the house rented for Rash Behari where
the explosion took place are in the same quarter of the city, Misri Pokhra,
and close to one another. The caps were deposited at Babu Ram’s house
and on the day of the explosion he took them to Narendra’s. Babu Ram’s
narration of the event goes on: “After making over the caps to Narendra
I remained outside his house walking up and down for a little time; then
I heard a very loud report. Thereupon I proceeded towards my house. I
met Narendra on the way near his house. Narendra carried in his hand
my dhoti with some things in it. I asked him was anyone injured, and his
reply was Babuji had been injured. By Babuji I understood him to mean
Rash Behari.” Another important detail deposed to by both Bibhuti and
Babu Ram is the taking away from Babu Ram’s store-house the ten bombs
which were afterwards found in the possession of a conspirator, Pingley,
in the Cavalary lines at Meerut.
Bibhuti and Mani Lal depose to different activities of the
conspirators, yet wherever their narratives touch on common incidents
they agree. Mani Lal has described how a conspirator, Damodar Sarup
alias Masterji, was introduced to him by Bibhuti, and a confirmation of
this statement is found in Bibhuti’s statement at page 12, line 13 of the
printed record of the former trial.
If the statements of Bibhuti and Hiranmoy are compared they will
be found to agree completely as to the teachings at the Young Men’s
464 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
Association and distribution of seditious literature in September and
October, 1913. They both depose to the occupation of Misri Pokhra
house by Rash Behari and to the visit of conspirators there.
Dilla Singh has deposed to eight meetings with the Bengalis and
identified at the previous trial Sachindra Nath Sanyal and Bibhuti, and at
this trial the two accused before the court. Narendra he saw only once
when he was taken to Narendra’s house by the Bengalis, and it appears
that the Bengalis with whom he had direct dealings were Sachindra,
Bibhuti, and Preomath. Dilla Singh is an ordinary villager who could
not possibly remember the details of meetings deposed to by him unless
he had actually taken part in them. Bibhuti mentioned Dilla Singh’s
name in his statement before the Magistrate and identified Dilla Singh in
the presence of Mr. Lamberi. The details given by him as to his meetings
with the Bengalis are borne out in the main by the evidence of Bibhuti.
He says that he, Puran Singh and Jadu Nath Singh met a dark Bengali
(meaning Preonath) at the Benares Cantonment station, and Bibhuti
deposes to this at page 8, line 37. According to Dilla Singh Bibhuti and
Preonath fetched him from the Barrack to the maidan where Jaleshwar
Singh and Sachindra were waiting; a reference to this will be found in
Bibhuti’s statement at page 8, line 40. Dilla Singh deposes to meeting
Rash Behari at a ghat to which he was taken along with Jadunath Singh
and Puran Singh by Preomath, in a carriage. This meeting was at Raja
Ghat as described by Bibhuti at page 11, line 37. As to Dilla Singh’s
visit to Narendra’s house with Sachindra and Preomath, Bibhuti stated at
page 35, line 32, that he heard of it from Sachindra and Preomath. Both
the approvers depose to the meeting of Dilla Singh with Pingley and
Kartar Singh near a tank close to the Military lines.
Instances of the agreement of the statements of the approvers in
details relating to the actions of the conspirators need not be multiplied.
An examination of their statements has satisfied us as to their genuineness
and the complicity of these approvers. We think that we may safely rely
on these statements and are prepared without corroboration to convict of
complicity any person implicated by the majority of the approvers. In
the present case however we are not required to go so far because there is
a considerable amount of independent corroboration to connect the
prisoners with the conspiracy.
Evidence of police officer.– Sub-Inspector Jugendra Chandra Gupta
(P. W. 11) and head constable Aklo Ram Kasari (P. W. 16) have deposed
Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 465
to the circumstances under which the prisoners were arrested, Narendra
Nath on 11th January and Preomath on 4th February of this year. Narendra
was carrying arms and assaulted the police at the time while Preomath
had assumed the name of Bihari Das. Narendra was arrested in Assam
and Preonath at Bankipur.
Mr. Sauds (P. W.12) has deposed to the distribution of seditios
literature in these provinces at the end of 1913 and to the receipt in
March 1915, of envelopes (Ex. 29) alleged to contain addresses in the
handwriting of Narendra. Inspector Banerji (P. W. 13 deposes to the
finding of seditious leaflets pasted up in the Benares city at the end of
1913). Mr. Mukharji, Deputy Superintendent, and Inspector Banerji
have stated that the approver Dilla Singh pointed out to the Narendra’s
residential house to which he was taken by Sachindra and Preonath
Independent evidence – The Independent witnesses are Bhagwan
Singh (P. W.6) and Chandrika Prasad (P. W. 7) Bhagwan Singh is
servant of the owner of a house in the city in a portion of which Bibhuti
lived; he was produced by the prosecution to prove that Preonath visited
Bibhuti’s house while Rash Behari was staying there (page 11, lines 4 to
14 of Bibhuti’s statement). The testimony of the newspaper boy Chandrika
Prasad will show that Narendra arranged for the delivery of a copy of the
Leader at the house near Jageshwar Press while Rash Behari was living
there.
Identification – Narendra admits acquaintance with all the approvers
except Dilla Singh, while Preonath deposed that he did not know either
Dilla Singh or Babu Ram. Both the prisoners disclaimed having ever
met Bhagwan Singh or Chandrika Prasad. The defence was that the
witnesses who did not know the prisoners recognized them because of
photos shown to the witnesses previously. We do not think that Dilla
Singh, Bhagwan Singh, and Chandrika Prasad are of sufficient
intelligence to identify a man after looking at his picture. It is true that
Preonath was photographed after his arrest in February last and that a
print of Narendra’s likeness taken out of a group of students of 1914 was
distributed with a number of the Police Gazette. There is no reason to
suspect however that any of the identifying witnesses saw the photographs
or the print. Moreover, the print of Narendra does not resemble his
present features. Two copies of Preonath’s photographs in different
positions were sent from Bihar to the C.I.D. of these provinces, and
Mr. Sands has deposed that those photographs came to him with a file
466 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
early in March last and have not left his possession since. We are of
opinion that the identifications were perfectly genuine.
The evidence connecting individual prisoners with the conspiracy
will be examined in Part II of the judgment, where it will be decided
what offence each is guilty of.
After the first day of the trial the evidence was typed by one of the
Commissioners, Mr. Johnston; this ensured of both accuracy and speed.
PART II.
ACCUSED
1. NARENDRA NATH BANERJI.
He is a native of Benares, but has been absconding since he 11th
March, 1915. He managed to elude the vigilance of the police for nearly
three years, and latterly shifted to Assam for his exploits, where he was
arrested at Gauhati on the 11th January, 1918, after some armed resistance.
The following facts are definitely established against him by
evidence:—
1. That he was one of the extremist party formed by Sachindra
Nath Sanyal in 1913 to work on the lines of the Bengal
anarchists.
2. That in the prosecution of that object (a) he distributed seditious
leaflets in the autumn of 1913 and March, 1915, and (b) carried
arms, ammunition, and bombs to and from the place that served
as depot therefor at Benares; and
3. That he frequently associated with the notorious anarchist Rash
Behari during his stay here in 1914-15 and helped the latter in
his propaganda to foment rebellion.
Bibhuti and Hiranmoy place Narendra among the prominent
members of the Young Men’s Association, after it had degenerated,
under Sachindra’s influence, into a society for the dissemination of
sedition. Bibhuti further mentions him, as a member of the “inner circle”.
The accused admits his attendance at the Kali Puja, annually held at the
club premises, in course whereof, according to Bibhuti, special prayers
Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 467
used to be offered for the explusion of the white race from India.
Both Bibhuti and Hiranmoy speak of Narendra as one of those
most violent members who felt dissatisfied at the political inactivity of
the association and seceded from it in 1913 to be in touch with the Bengal
anarchists and to work on their lines. Mani Lal knows nothing of the
split, but supports the version as to the formation of this new party, its
revolutionary aims, and Narendra’s joining that party.
The first step towards execution of this anarchist programme was
the distribution of Liberty and Swadhin Bharat leaflets, which openly
incited rebellion (Exs. 9, 11 to 14 and 28). The prosecution have proved
Narendra’s participation in such distributions, twice towards the close of
1913 and once in March, 1915.
Hiranmoy and Bibhuti speak of his pasting of these leaflets (Exs.
9, 11 to 14) n the walls in different mohallas of Benares. Hiranmoy
mentions another distribution by this accused in 1913, of which Bibhuti
had no direct knowledge, he being ill at the time (page 21 old record).
Mani Lal speaks of Narendra’s custody of Liberty leaflets (Ex. 9) before
December, 1913.
It was in March, 1915 that Bibhuti noticed another Swadhin Bharat
leaflet (Ex. 28) with Narendra. In the same month Mr. Sands received
from the superintendent of police, Dehra Dun, four covers addressed to
different persons of this district, each containing a copy of the leaflet.
The covers were posted on the 10th March, 1915, and bear addresses
from Narendra’s pen. The evidence of Bibhuti and the comparison of
the writing with the contents of the accused’s examination answer book
(Ex. F) leave no room for any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the
handwriting. In the absence of any explanation by the defence it would
be fair to presume that the accused had dispatched the leaflet (Ex. 28)
under these covers.
Rash Behari’s appearance on the scene, towards the beginning of
1914, stimulated further the revolutionary activities of this new party.
He converted it into a connecting like between the Bengal and Punjab
anarchists. The local depot for arms, ammunition and bombs came into
existence after his arrival. The attempts at seduction of troops were started
under his advice.
It was through Narendra that Bibhuti and Babu Ram came to be
introduced to Rash Behari in 1914. We have it from Bibhuti that
Narendra:—
468 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
(1) secured for Rash Behari the house in Misri Pokhra, not far off
from his own (old record, page 4, line 28);
(2) became a frequent visitor at his place (p. 4, lines 43 and 53,
and p. 11 line 12);
(3) copied for the press Rash Behari’s article on Arjun Lal Sethi
(p. 5, line 42);
(4) attended the demonstration given by Rash Behari of the use of
bombs and revolvers (page 5, lines 3-13);
(5) was present with Rash behari when a bomb cap exploded on
being handled by him one night, on November 14 (page 5);
(6) attended the meeting at which Rash Behari made an
announcement about the rising that was to come off on the 21st
February, 1915 (p. 7, lines 39-40);
(7) was assigned by Rash Behari at the same meeting the task of
bringing arms, ammunition and bombs, etc., from Bengal (p.
7, lines 42 and 43);
(8) went to Chanderagore in January, 1915 under Rash Behari’s
orders to learn bomb makinig (p. 16, lines 43:17); and
(9) under Rash Behari’s instructions fled from Beanres to Calcutta
with another anarchist, Vinayak Rao, the day the latter’s house
was searched (11th March, 1915), p.11, line 54, and Mr. Scott
O’ Connor’s evidence.
Hiranmoy (P. W. 9) supports Bibhuti’s version about Narendra’s
visits to Rash Behari in 1914, and the latter’s inculcation of revolutionary
principles among the Benares conspirators. The witness seceded from
the revolutionary camp and returned to his native place in Bengal about
July, 1915. When Rash Behari’s letters failed to stir up Hiranmoy to
fresh activities, Narendra, according to the latter visited him at his native
place in Bengal about July, 1915, took him to Calcutta towards the middle
of 1915, and here, in conjunction with his three accomplices, Vinayak
Rao, Sachindra and Ashu, tried to win back Hiranmoy to the anarchist’s
cause. Bibhuti found Rash Behari at Calcutta about that time (p. 14, last
paragraph); and it would not be unreasonable to presume that finding his
personal efforts unavailing, Rash Behari deputed Narendra on this task
of securing him Hiranmoy’s services.
Of all the Benares consirators none but Sachindra and Narendra
handled the arms, ammunition and bombs for transmission to and back
from the local depot. Babu Ram, who played the role of a mere storekeeper
Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 469
in this conspiracy, sums up Narendra’s part thus in this connection:—
(1) He brought two bombs and two caps which, after addition of
some solution by Sachindra, were returned to the former a
few days later, on the night of 18th November, 1914, shortly
before the explosion.
(2) took back the revolver that had been deposited by Sachindra.
(3) brought a couple of pistols and then took them back in company
with Sachindra; and
(4) brought ten bombs with caps in February, 1915, which were
made over to Pingley towards the end of March following.
Bibhuti supports Babu Ram’s testimony as to the last deposit and
its subsequent disposal. He adds that Pashupati had brought these ten
bombs from Bengal (p. 10).
These transactions undoubtedly constitute, “Collection of arms,
etc.” and “Preparation for waging war” within the meaning of section
122, I.P.C.
Bibhuti’s evidence shows that Narendra went with other Benares
conspirators to the Maidan in Benares cantonment on the evening of the
21st Februry, 1915, in expectation of a mutiny among the troops.
Dilla Singh proves Narendra’s presence in the house at the time a
bomb was shown to him by Preonath before March, 1915. This house,
which he subsequently pointed to the police officers, turns out to be
Narendra’s.
His presence at the Maidan or inside the house would not, however,
constitute an attempt to tamper with the allegiance of the troops or an
abetment of mutiny.
The defence contented itself with a mere denial of the incriminating
facts thus proved, but made not the least attempt to rebut them. They
failed to suggest any motive which could have possibly influenced the
witnesses to implicate Naredra.
To disprove the trip to Chandernagore in January, 1915 the accused
suggested his attendance at a local school throughout that month. The
studied omission to produce the school attendance register falsifies the
defence.
To discredit Chandrika’s supply of “Leader” at the house behind
Jageshwar Press, then in Rash Behari’s occupation, Narendra sets up his
regular purchase of that paper at his own place from a third person, but
no attempt has been made either to examine that person or to supply his
470 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
name or address.
To explain his sudden disappearance from Benares and journey to
Calcutta the accused suggests a quarrel with his mother over his indifferent
preparation for the examination. If true, the fact could be easily proved,
but no attempt was made in this behalf. Such maternal admonitions do
met result in banishment for years.
This absconding for about three years, in spite of the knowledge of
the house search and the arrest of co-conspirators, and the circumstances
attending Narendra’s own arrest greatly supplement the other proof of
his guilt under sections 121A and 122, Indian Penal Code. It was in a
field at Gauhati that the police found Narendra with four others, on the
11th January, 1918. he and at least one other of the party (Nalini Ghosh)
were armed with revolvers. To rescue the latter from the constables,
with whom he was then struggling, Narendra hammered one with the
muzzle of his weapon, but was ultimately overpowered and arrested. At
the same time we take into consideration that he has already been sentenced
to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. Such a desperate character, whose
part in the conspiracy was next only to Sachindra’s in importance, merits
no light punishment.
We convict Narendra Nath Banerji under section 121A and 122,
Indian Penal Code, and sentence him to seven years’ imprisonment on
each count; the sentences to run concurrently, but to start after the expiry
of the one he is now undergoing. We further direct, as required by section
122, Indian Penal Code, that he do forfeit all his property.
ACCUSED NO. 2, PREONATH BHATTACHARJI.
This man is named by all the five approvers as having been a member
of the conspiracy. Bibhuti in his statement mentioned him in connection
with a large number of incidents, but it is not necessary to detail them
all, for in many cases though there may be such corroboration of Bibhuti’s
statement as to leave no doubt that the incident occurred, there is no
evidence corroborative of the fact that Preonath played the part ascribed
to him by Bibhuti.
There are four points, however, which are worthy of special
mention. Bibhuti deposed that Preonath was with him when he took
away ten bombs from the house of Babu Ram in company with Pingley.
Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 471
These bombs were afterwards found in the possession of Pingley in the
Cavalry Lines at Meerut. Babu Ram in his evidence states that Bibhuti,
Preonath and two other men took away these bombs. Secondly, Bibhuti
stated that Preonath had distributed leaflets containing seditious matter
at the Bengalitola High school, and this is corroborated by the evidence
of Hiranmoy, who says that Preonath took part in the second distribution
of leaflets, which took place in October, 1913. Thirdly, Bibhuti stated
that Preonath accompanied him and Sachindra, the chief of the Benares
conspirators, to the lines of the 7th Rajputs at Beanres, and there had
interviews with Jaleshwar Singh, Dilla Singh and other sepoys. This is
corroborated by the evidence of Dilla Singh, who states that Preonath
was one of the persons who used to frequent the house at Misri Pokhra,
where Rash Bihari Bose was hiding in Benares, and that he was present
when Rash Bihari gave a lecture showing how bombs were managed.
The witness Bhagwan Singh has identified Preonath as one of the Bengalis
who used to visit the house of Bibhuti. Mani Lal and Hiranmoy both say
that Preonath was one of the members of the secret society headed by
Sachindra.
It is not contended that the witnesses in their evidence referred to
any person other than the present accused, nor is it suggested that there is
any other man of the same name who was a member of the Young Men’s
Association. The fact that the witnesses mentioned Preonath and ascribed
to him a considerable part in the conspiracy, at a time when he could not
be found, greatly strengthens the evidence. The evidence of accomplices
is always suspect, and one has to regard the possibility that an accomplice
has been induced to name an accused person falsely in order to secure a
conviction. But though police officers are sometimes over anxious to
procure the conviction of persons who have been apprehended, our
experience does not lead us to consider it in any way probable that
evidence against persons who were absconding would be accumulated in
this way.
When examined by the court Preonath denied all connection with
the conspiracy and suggested that his identification had been procured by
the aid of the photographs which were taken after his arrest. He did not,
however, suggest that the witness implicating him had any personal grudge
against him. But though Preonath did not plead guilty, he evidently
realised that the evidence proving his connection with the conspiracy
was too clear to be rejected, and his pleader in arguing his case merely
472 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements
endeavoured to show that the accused did not take a leading part in any
serious act committed in consequence of the conspiracy.
It was argued that the interviews between the accused and sepoys
of the regiment only began a few weeks before the date which had been
fixed for the commencement of the rising, and that either the work of
seducing the troops must have been accomplished already by some more
prominent member of the society, or the attempt to seduce the troops
was not really serious. It was also argued that the occasion when Rash
Bihari gave a lecture on the method of using bombs was the same as the
occasion when bomb caps exploded and injured him, on which occasion
Preonath is not alleged to have been present. It is thus argued that the
allegation that Preonath was present at the lecture is an exaggeration.
This argument appears to us to be far-fetched, for there is nothing to
connect the two occasions.
With regard to the evidence that Preonath was with Bibhuti and
Pingley when the ten bombs were removed from the house of Babu Ram
it has been argued that Babu Ram may have made a mistake of identity,
for he was doubtful of the identity of Preonath when he gave his evidence.
But Babu Ram had named Preonath as having taken part in this at the
former trial, and though in court he had expressed doubts as to the identity
of the accused, we have the fact that he did pick out Preonath in the jail
when called upon to identify him.
We are therefore of opinion that it has been clearly established that
Preonath was a member of a conspiracy to wage war against the King,
and that in pursuance of the objects of the conspiracy he distributed
seditious literature, took part in the collection of bombs, and attempted
to seduce from their allegiance soldiers of His Majesty’s Indian Army.
We thus find him guilty of offences punishable under sections 121A,
122 and 131 of the Indian Penal Code. In determining the sentence we
take into consideration the facts that his attempts upon the loyalty of the
troops do not appear to have been made until very shortly before the date
fixed for the rising, that in the only incident connected with the collection
of bombs which is corroborated, he appears to have taken a subordinate
part; and that he does not appear to have given trouble at the time of his
arrest. We find, however, that of the Benares conspirators he was one of
the principal men subordinate to Sachindra Nath Sanyal, and though his
part in the conspiracy was altogether inferior to that taken by Sachindra,
it was more prominent than that of most of the other accused who were
Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 473
tried in the original case. We sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for
six years under each section, the sentences to run concurrently, and further
under section 122 of the Indian Penal Code we direct that he do forfeit
all his property.

22-5-1918. D.J. DALAL.

22-5-1918. SEETLAN PRASAD BAJAPEYI
22-5-1818. T.K. JOHNSTON.

474 / Ghadr Movement Original Documents — Judgements Benares Conspiracy Case (Supplementary) / 475