NARAIN CHANDRA BISWAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, seven in number, were tried by a special Magistrate at Rangpur, appointed by the Local Government, under Section 24, Bengal Act 12 of 1932, for commission of offences under the Indian Arms Act, and under Section 120-B, I. P. C., and on conviction, sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment. All the appellants were charged with offences of the following description. That they between June 1933, a December, 1934 at Gaibandha agreed with one another and with others, to have in their possession or under their control revolvers, pistols and guns in contravention of Section 14 and Section 15, Arms Act, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 19 (f), Section 19-A, Arms Act, read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. The appellants Nagendra Mohan Mustafi and Paresh Chandra Choudhury were charged separately for possession and control of a revolver, Ex. 11 in the case, in a manner indicating an intention that such control and possession might not be known to any public servant, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 20, Arms Act. Nagendra Mohan Mustafi and Paresh Chandra Choudhury were each of then sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 120-B, I. P. C., read with Section 19 (f), Section 19-A, Arms Act, and 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 20, Arms Act, the sentences running concurrently. Jogesh Chandra Das was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 120-B, I. P. C. read with Section 19 (f). Section 19-A Arms Act. Narain Chandra Biswas and Satyendra Nath Chaki were sentenced to 6 years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Section 19 (f), Section 19-A, Arms Act. Bejoy Kumar Nandi and Binoy Kumar Tarafdar were each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, under Section 120-B I. P. C., read with Section 19 (f), Section 19-A, Arms Act.

(2.) The case against the accused persons placed on their trial was that they belonged to the Yugantar Party-a revolutionary organisation having for its object the subversion of British rule in India by armed revolt, that they along with others conspired to procure arms like revolvers, pistols and guns, that they used to meet at places to settle their line of action. The case for the prosecution was that in order to purchase arms, money used to be raised by thefts and subscriptions by members of the party; and evidence was led to establish that members were advised to steal ornaments from their own houses; that these ornaments when melted the sale-proceeds of the gold were used for purchase of revolutionary literature and revolvers. Evidence of overt acts was given to establish how Nagendra Mohan Mustafi purchased books in Calcutta and sent them to Gaibandha; it was also sought to be proved by evidence, that Nagen had possession and control of the revolver (Ex. 2); he made it over to Paresh; it was then kept in a vacant house. There was also evidence led by the prosecution to show that Jogesh and Benoy went to Naogaon with a revolver and a pistol (Exs. 3 and 4) and that Durga Burman was sent to Naogaon to bring back the revolver and the pistol (Exs. 3 and 4) from one Probhas Pramanik; the revolver and the pistol were brought to Gaibandha according to arrangement made. The evidence for the prosecution sought to connect all or some or any of the individual accused with the acts of the conspirators mentioned above, the object of the conspiracy being, as mentioned already, the over-throw of the British rule in India by armed revolution.

(3.) The evidence in the case consisted of: (1) the evidence of witnesses mentioned in the judgment of the Magistrate, as "accomplice witnesses" or witnesses in the position of accomplices. (2) The evidence afforded by what has been described by the Magistrate as confessions of three of the accused persons, Nagen, Jogesh and Paresh, which were retracted and the other two statements of Satyendra and Benoy self-exculpatory in nature. (3) The evidence of independent witnesses. All this evidence related to the association of all or some of the accused persons at four secret meetings, their agreement to collect money by thefts or otherwise, purchase of revolutionary literature, and for acquisition of arms. The confessional statements recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164, Criminal P. C., though retracted, support the conviction of the accused persons who made them. As to their voluntariness there is no manner of doubt; and taken along with the other evidence in the case, they establish the guilt of the accused persons. The self-exculpatory statements made by Satyendra and Benoy lend support to the evidence for the prosecution, so far as they go, against the accused persons other than those two who made those statements to save themselves. The three confessional statements by Nagen, Jogesh and Paresh, contain some discrepancy and divergency; but there is ample evidence to support one or other of the accounts given in detail by the confessing accused. The confessional statements as also the exculpatory statements have to be taken into consideration along with the other evidence in the case; and, in our opinion, they lend support to the other evidence in the case. The case before us is not one in which a confession by an accused person is evidence in the case independent of other evidence; the confessional statements are only pieces of evidence which, taken along with other evidence, support the case for the prosecution; and we have considered the statements under Section 164, Criminal P. C., confessional or exculpatory in nature, from that standpoint. It was contended before us that the confessional statements were not admissible in evidence at all.