EMPEROR Vs. NOGENDRA NATH SEN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the evening of November 25th last, at or about 7-30, two bombs were exploded in a lane off Harrison Road known as Mussalmanpara Lane. It resulted in the death of a Police officer, Ram Bhujan Singh, and in severe injuries to two other Police officers, Monoranjan Chuekerbutty and Someswar Dutt Panday, and also to a man named Harabilas Ghosal.

(2.) Of the two bombs one was thrown through the open street door into a room of the house No. 10-4-1, Mussalmanpara Lane, the other struck the front wall of the house to the west of that door. It is the prosecution s case that both bombs were thrown by a party of three or more Bengali youths in furtherance of the common intention of all and that the accused Nogendra Nath Sen Gupta not only was of the party, but actually threw one of the bombs, might charges have accordingly been framed against the accused Nogendra Four impute to him that he himself threw a bomb, the other four impute to him that it he did not throw the bomb, still he was a member of the party that did and that this establishes his guilt. Objection was taken on behalf of the accused that even on the case made by the prosecution the charge in reliance on Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained. We, however, overruled the objection and have heard the case on the merits. The charges as drawn would seem to impute to the accused that he was the thrower of both bombs, for they charged him with having directly caused the injury both to Harabilas Ghosal and to the other three men, though it is fairly obvious that the injury to Harabilas was occasioned by the bomb that fell within the room and that to the other three by that which struck the wall. In the argument before us, the case made was that the accused threw the bomb that struck the wall or the second bomb as it has been termed. This view rests on the evidence of Someswar. He describes the man who threw the bomb as wearing an alwan and this is probable; but according to evidence on which reliance can safely be placed, the accused had no alwan that evening. Apart from this, we regard Someswar as a patently unreliable witness, as will later appear, and it would be absolutely wrong to base any conclusion on an identification purporting to be made by him. Beyond this, there is no evidence that could justify the conviction of the accused on the first, third, fifth or seventh charges.

(3.) It has then to be seen whether the bomb was thrown by a party of men and whether the accused was of that party. It is beyond question that two bombs were thrown and that there were two or more men of the party by whom they were thrown. The object of the attack was undoubtedly Basanta Kumar Chatterji, a Deputy Superintendent in the C.I.D, and the occupier of No. 10/4/1, Mussalmanpara Lane. Those by whom this dastardly attack has been made have been assumed to be members of a society described us anarchist. With the commendable fairness that has marked his conduct of this case, Sir Satyendra Sinba has stated that, apart from what is disclosed in these proceedings, the prosecution know nothing of the accused that would associate him with any anarchical movement. At the same time, we know that he is a student of the Presidency College residing in the Oxford Mission Hostel, and it is apparent that he is as far removed from the class of degenerates as a lad well can be.