LEGAL HISTORY PSDA

COURSE: BA LLB

NAME: ARINDAM PRAKASH

ENROLLMENT NUMBER:14517703822
SECTION:C
SEMESTER:2
TOPIC OF PSDA :ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT

Prosecution Arguments:

The accused were part of a larger conspiracy: The prosecution argued that the
accused were part of a larger conspiracy to overthrow British rule in India. They
alleged that the accused were part of a secret organization called the Hindustan
Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), which had a long history of violent
activities, including the assassination of British officials. The prosecution
presented evidence to show that the accused were members of the HSRA, and
that they had been involved in various acts of violence and sabotage against the
British government.

Evidence of conspiracy: The prosecution presented a range of evidence to

support their case, including intercepted letters and telegrams, which they
claimed showed that the accused were planning an armed revolt against the
British government. They also presented evidence of secret meetings and
communications between the accused, which they argued demonstrated their
involvement in the conspiracy. The prosecution claimed that the accused had
been planning to launch an armed uprising in different parts of India, with the
ultimate goal of overthrowing British rule.
Connection to Communist International: The prosecution also argued that the
accused were part of a larger international conspiracy, linked to the Communist
International, which was seeking to spread communism and overthrow capitalist
governments around the world. They claimed that the accused were receiving
support and funding from communist groups in other countries, and that their
actions were part of a wider global movement. The prosecution presented
evidence to show that the accused had been in contact with communist groups
in different countries, and that they had received support and funding from these
groups.

Sedition and anti-national activities: The prosecution also argued that the
accused were engaged in seditious and anti-national activities, which were a
threat to the security and stability of the British Raj that was illigitimate under
121-A, 'Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860). They claimed that the accused were
seeking to incite rebellion and create unrest among the Indian people, which
would ultimately lead to the overthrow of British rule. The prosecution
presented evidence to show that the accused had been involved in various
activities that were considered seditious and anti-national, including the
distribution of seditious literature, and the organization of strikes and protests.

Defense Arguments:

Lack of evidence: The defense argued that the prosecution had failed to produce
any concrete evidence to support their allegations of a conspiracy. They claimed
that the intercepted letters and telegrams presented by the prosecution were
either fabricated or taken out of context, and that the secret meetings and
communications between the accused were part of legitimate political
organizing, rather than a conspiracy to overthrow the government. The defense
claimed that the prosecution had presented circumstantial evidence that did not
prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Police brutality and torture: The defense also alleged that the accused had been
subjected to police brutality and torture, which had forced them to make false
confessions and implicate others in the alleged conspiracy. They claimed that
the accused had been beaten, whipped, and subjected to electric shocks, and that
their human rights had been violated. The defense presented evidence to show
that the accused had been subjected to physical and psychological torture during
their detention, and that their confessions were not voluntary.

Political persecution: The defense argued that the case was an example of
political persecution, aimed at suppressing legitimate political dissent and
crushing the growing independence movement in India. They claimed that the
accused were being targeted because of their socialist and communist beliefs,
and that the British authorities were using the case to send a message to other
political activists and organizations. The defense argued that the British
government was using the Meerut Conspiracy Case to suppress the growing
nationalist movement in India, and to create a climate of fear and intimidation
among the Indian people.

Right to a fair trial: The defense also argued that the accused had been denied
their right to a fair trial, and that the judge and jury were biased against them.
They claimed that the trial was held in a hostile atmosphere, with the media and
public opinion against the accused, and that they were not given a fair chance to
present their case.