Conspiracy to wage war requires corroborated proof of each accused's membership; retracted confessions alone cannot sustain conviction.

In a joint trial for conspiracy to wage war, conviction could stand only on reliable, corroborated evidence proving that each accused was a member of the single conspiracy charged. The HC treated the Section 121A allegation as one common conspiracy and held that accomplice evidence required material corroboration, particularly on the offence and identity of the accused. It found the principal approvers unreliable because of inconsistencies and improvements, and held retracted confessions unsafe as independent proof, capable only of lending assurance to other evidence. On the facts, the conspiracy was proved only against six accused; the remaining accused were acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India, and whether the evidence of approvers, confessions, and alleged overt acts established the guilt of the accused who were convicted while the others were entitled to acquittal.

Analysis: The charge under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code was treated as a single conspiracy alleged against all the accused, and conviction could follow only if each convicted accused was proved to be a member of that same conspiracy. The Court held that accomplice evidence required material corroboration, especially as to the offence and the identity of the accused, and found the principal approvers to be unreliable because of material inconsistencies and improvements in their successive statements. The retracted confessions relied upon against co-accused were held unsafe to use as independent proof and capable only of lending assurance to other evidence. The alleged dacoities, the 10th Jats incident, the Chatra Bhandar, the Jugantar, the Muraripukur connection, and the lathi exercises were not accepted as sufficient proof against most of the accused. On the other hand, the Court concluded that the conspiracy itself was proved and that the evidence established the participation of the six accused who were ultimately convicted.

Conclusion: The charge of conspiracy to wage war was proved only against Soilen Das, Sushil Biswas, Atul Mukherjee, Gonesh Das, Soilendra Nath Chatterjee, and Upendra Kristo Deb, and the remaining accused were acquitted.

Final Conclusion: The judgment sustained convictions against six accused for conspiracy to wage war and acquitted the others, with sentences ordered to run after the previously imposed sentences in the Haludbari case.

Ratio Decidendi: In a joint trial for conspiracy, conviction can rest only on reliable, corroborated evidence showing that each accused was a member of the single conspiracy charged, and a retracted confession of an accomplice cannot by itself sustain conviction against co-accused.

---