1911 (4) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Court clarifies conspiracy not posing serious threat to authority; emphasizes need for reliable evidence

Emperor Versus Lalit Mohan Chuckerbutty and Ors.

The court found that a conspiracy to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor had been proved, but clarified that it did not pose a serious menace to ... - Issues Involved:1. Conspiracy to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor.2. Mental incapacity of an accused.3. Jurisdictional issues and discharge of accused.4. Acquittal and withdrawal of prosecution against certain accused.5. Evidence of conspiracy, including oral, documentary, and confessions.6. Credibility and corroboration of approvers' evidence.7. Connection of various dacoities to the alleged conspiracy.8. Seduction of soldiers from allegiance.9. Role of Chatra Bhandar and Jugantar in the conspiracy.10. Association in physical activities as evidence of conspiracy.11. Legal impossibility of multiple conspiracies.12. Sentencing of convicted accused.Detailed Analysis:1. Conspiracy to Wage War Against His Majesty the King-Emperor:The principal charge was under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging a conspiracy to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor, deprive him of the sovereignty of British India, and overawe the Government of India by means of criminal force. The prosecution's case was that the accused were part of a vast conspiracy aiming at the overthrow of the British Government, involving the collection of men, arms, and money, and committing various crimes as part of this conspiracy. The court concluded that a conspiracy to wage war had been proved, but clarified that this determination did not imply a serious menace to the constitution or stability of constituted authority in India.2. Mental Incapacity of an Accused:One accused, Bhuban Mukherjee, was alleged to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defense. The court directed an adjournment of the trial against him subject to any objections that may be taken on his behalf.3. Jurisdictional Issues and Discharge of Accused:The accused Satish Chandra Mitter and Haripado Adhikari were discharged for want of jurisdiction due to the prosecution's failure to observe the provisions of Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Another accused, Bimola Deb, was acquitted at the instance of the prosecution on the ground that there was no case against him.4. Acquittal and Withdrawal of Prosecution Against Certain Accused:The case against Kiran Rai was dropped due to his mental condition and his existing sentence for another crime. The prosecution also decided not to proceed against Jotindra Nath Mukherjee and Nibaran Mozunadar alias Karuda due to insufficient evidence.5. Evidence of Conspiracy:The evidence included oral testimonies, documentary evidence, and real evidence such as arms and ammunition. The principal oral evidence was from the approvers Lalit Mohan Chuckerbutty and Jotindra Nath Hazra, whose testimonies required corroboration in material particulars. The documentary evidence consisted of books, newspapers, accounts, diaries, and letters, while the confessions of certain accused were also considered under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.6. Credibility and Corroboration of Approvers' Evidence:The court scrutinized the reliability of the approvers, particularly Lalit Mohan Chuckerbutty, whose evidence was found to be inconsistent and untrustworthy. Similarly, the evidence of Jotindra Nath Hazra was also found to be unreliable. The court emphasized the need for corroboration from an untainted source for the approvers' testimonies.7. Connection of Various Dacoities to the Alleged Conspiracy:The prosecution alleged that several dacoities were part of the conspiracy. The court examined each dacoity, including those at Changripota, Sibpur, Barah, Bighati, Protapchuck, Raita, Morehal, Musapur, Netra, Maharajpur, and Haludbari. The court found that the evidence did not reliably connect most of these dacoities to the accused or the conspiracy, except for the Haludbari dacoity, where certain accused had already been convicted.8. Seduction of Soldiers from Allegiance:The prosecution alleged that the conspiracy involved attempting to seduce soldiers of the 10th Jats from their allegiance. The court found insufficient evidence to support this charge against the accused, noting discrepancies and lack of corroboration in the testimonies of the soldiers involved.9. Role of Chatra Bhandar and Jugantar in the Conspiracy:The prosecution argued that the Chatra Bhandar and the Jugantar were integral parts of the conspiracy. The court found no established facts to support this theory, noting that the Chatra Bhandar was a legitimate trading concern and the Jugantar's connection to the conspiracy was not proven beyond its wide circulation and popularity.10. Association in Physical Activities as Evidence of Conspiracy:The prosecution relied on evidence of association in music, gymnastic exercises, and lathi play. The court found that these activities, conducted openly and without secrecy, did not reasonably indicate a conspiracy to wage war.11. Legal Impossibility of Multiple Conspiracies:The court emphasized that it could only find one conspiracy, and the prosecution must establish that each accused was a member of that single conspiracy. Any accused not shown to be a member of that conspiracy was entitled to acquittal.12. Sentencing of Convicted Accused:The court found the charge under Section 121A of the Penal Code established against Soilen Das, Sushil Biswas, Atul Mukherjee, Gonesh Das, Soilendra Nath Chatterjee, and Upendra Kristo Deb. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, with the sentences to commence at the expiration of their existing sentences from the Haludbari case. The rest of the accused were acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty, except those already serving sentences for other convictions.The judgment concluded with an acknowledgment of the conduct of the case by both sides and the assistance received by the court.