EMPEROR Vs. ABANI BHUSHAN CHUCKERBUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prisoners in this case stand charged with offences under Section 121 A of the Indian Indian Penal Code. It is the case for the Crown that there exists a wide-spread conspiracy to effect a revolution by violence and by force of arms to deprive the King of the solvereignty of British India. The allegation is that the thirteen persons who now stand in the dock are participators in that conspiracy; and to justify the inference that the conspiracy exists and that the persons, who have been placed upon their trial before us, are engaged in that conspiracy, the Crown relies upon certain facts. The first important fact on which the Crown relies is that there was found in the possession of some of the prisoners a trunk containing documents advocating revolution by violence, describing how secret societies to that end should be organized and the lines on which they should carry out their operations, how high explosives were to be manufactured and how, when prepared, they could most readily be employed for the purpose of murder and the destruction of property.

(2.) All the prisoners, it is said, were in close association with those in whose possession those documents were found, and with each other, and they were found to be pursuing the line of action laid down in the documents which were discovered in their possession. For example, the minds of persons peaceful and contented were to be inflamed by Seditious writings, by songs and by speeches and such methods; and from the prisoners, it is alleged, emanted seditious writings, seditious speeches and seditious poetry, directed to the end laid down in the documents found in their possession. Further, bands of men were to be organized for the purpose of actively propagating doctrines of revolution, and these bands were to be trained to warlike exercises, and to undergo physical drill and instruction in the use of weapons. It is said that the prisoner were parties to the organization of, or were members of, such bands, and that amongst these bands seditious speeches were made, and the youth of the country who were attracted to them were trained in physical exercise (lathi play) with intent that they should be able to take their part in the revolution by force, which it was intended, at some future time, to bring about. Funds were to be collected for the purpose of propagating the doctrine of the conspirators and for the collection of arms and ammunition. These funds were to be collected by the associations, or were to be obtained by means of robberies committed on the peaceable inhabitants of the country. It is alleged that the prisoners were parties to various robberies or attempts to rob, and, lastly, the Crown relies upon the fact that the correspondence and documents found in the possession of the various prisoners disclose that they were engaged in some secret design which they were unable to express openly. And it is contended that the literature in the possession of the prisoners and the acts done by them point to one conclusion, and that is, that they were parties to the design which is charged against them in the indictment.

(3.) Now with regard to the evidence which has been placed before us, the first piece of evidence to which we think it right to refer is the statement of one of the accused persons, namely, Abani. This man was arrested on the 2nd of September; and on the 13 of September, he made a statement to a Magistrate named Kumud Nath Mookerjee. In that statement he implicated himself and a large number of persons in the conspiracy which is charged against the prisoners; and out of the number that he implicated eight of the persons who now stand in the dock were included. Later, in company with another Magistrate, he went to the various places he had referred to in his statement and pointed out the scenes of the different incidents to which he referred, and, later still, before the Magistrate he made depositions against his co-accused in certain proceedings which were instituted against them under Secs.400 and 395 of the of the Indian Penal Code. While in jail he held surreptitious communications with another person who was in jail, a man named Lalit, and intimated in those communication that he intended to what he withdraw what he said when he was called as a witness in the trial of the persons against whom he had depositions before the Magistrate. In fact when called witness he retracted the statements he had made and suggested that what he had said had been taught him by the late Shamsul Akin. Now Shamsul Alum was murdered on the 24 of January. The communication which Abani held with Lalit was in February, and it is a very striking and singnificant fact that in the communication with his friend Lalit there is no suggestion that the late Inspector taught him anything. That appears to us to be a pure afterthought, and the suggestion is made by Abani because the man against whom it is made cannot be called to contradict it. It is clear to us that the statement made by Abani in the presence of the Magistrate, Kumud Nath Mookerjee, was a perfectly voluntary statement, and that, with the statement made before the other Magistrate and the deposition, it can be regarded, at any rate, as evidence against Abani himself. That is the first part of the evidence on which the Crown relies.