Written Statement of Savarkar



Background:  The following has been reproduced verbatim from the official documents (printed in 6 volumes) of the Mahatma Gandhi Murder Case Vol. II (Statements of the accused):  The following is the written statement of Savarkar:

 

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, RED FORT, DELHI

                                             CRIMINAL CASE NO.            OF  1948

                                      REX. -Complainant.

                                                  Versus

                                  GODSE and others, -Accused.

                      Charged under Section 120B., 302 etc.

Herein the Accused No. 7, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, begs to state as follows:-

 

1.      That I did not commit any of the offences charged against me, nor had I any reason to do so.

 

2.      Although the evidence in the case clearly shows that the incidents of 29th and 30th January 1948 were the individual acts of the parties concerned, and were not the result of any conspiracy in that behalf, and although the accused concerned with the said incidents have also admitted to this effect.

 

 

3.      Still, be the finding of the Court in this respect what it may, I solemnly assert that I was never a party to any agreement or conspiracy as alleged by the Prosecution nor had I any knowledge of any such criminal design.

 

4.      I never abetted the commission of any offence mentioned in the charge sheet, nor had I any reason to do so.

 

 

5.      As it is quite necessary that I should note here some relevant details respecting my personal life and position in order to clarify my defence.  I beg to state that I graduated from the Bombay University in 1905.  I joined the Grey’s Inn in London to read Law and qualified myself for the Bar on 1909 or thereabout.  The literature written by me consists of numerous poetical, dramatical, critical, historical and other works both in Marathi and English.  Some of these works or portions thereof have often been selected and sanctioned as texts for schools and colleges by more than one University in India.  Recently the Nagpur University was pleased to confer on me the Doctorate in appreciation of my services to literature.  I had been elected to preside over numerous Sessions, Conventions and Conferences, political, social, religious, literary and others held in almost all Indian Provinces from Assam to Sindh and Kashmir to Cape.  Several of these details and others supporting this point have already been recorded in the evidence advanced by the Prosecution itself (See P.W. 57, pages 222 and 223, and P.W. 69, pages 319 and 320).

 

6.      Savarkar Sadan.  Some ten years ago I came to reside in my newly built own house named “Savarkar Sadan” situated in Dadar, Bombay.  So far as this case is concerned a few details regarding this house must be noted.  The Savarkar Sadan is a two storeyed building.  On the ground floor, the middle hall has been reserved by me without charging any rent, for the “Hindu Sanghatan” office which I maintained at my own cost to carry on the work of Hindu Sanghatan, on the lines of the Hindu Mahasabha.  Local Hindu Sabha workers and those from other places used to gather there and hold informal discussions regarding the Hindu Sabha work.  There used to be kept a number of fresh dailies and periodicals for the reading of those Hindu Sabha workers and occasional visitors who happened to come there.  It was used as a reception hall too.  There was a telephone which could be used for the staff of the office, the tenants of the house and acquaintances.  The typing and writing work regarding the Hindu Sanghatan activities was also done there.  This office was generally in charge of a Secretary.  On important matters alone he was expected to consult me about the management of this office.  For the last four or five years Mr G.V. Damle as my Secretary and Mr. kasar as my body-guard used to be in charge of this office.  Mr. Kasar resided in a room just behind this hall.

 

         As one enters this house on the left hand of this middle hall on the ground floor a set of rooms is rented out.  For the last few years Mr. A.S. Bhide has been residing there as a tenant with his family.  He was the Editor of an English Weekly named “Free Hindusthan” and was a prominent leader of the Bombay and Maharashtra Provincial Hindu Sabhas.  On the right hand side of this middle hall there has been residing Mr G.V. Damle with his family in a second set of rooms.  Besides being my Secretary, Mr G.V. Damle has been an independent and prominent worker in the Dadar and Bombay Provincial Hindu Sabhas.

 

I myself with my family resided on the first floor of the House.  My personal office and reception room were situated in the middle hall on this first floor.  To avoid strain on my declining health no public visitors or workers were allowed to go upstairs on this first floor to see me unless specially permitted to do so by me through the Secretary.  All interviews were granted by me after special appointments only.  On this first floor also there is a set of rooms rented out to a tenant with his family.

 

Some implied allegations of the Prosecution compel me to note here,- which otherwise my sense of humility could never have allowed me to do so - that thousands of persons from all parts of India and at times from foreign countries too used to visit this Savarkar Sadan.  From Princes to peasants, and from all India leaders belonging to different parties as Sanatanists and Socialists, Hindusabhaites and Congressites down to youths in Colleges and Schools numerous persons and personalities used to visit Savarkar Sadan day in and day out.  Press representatives and distinguished political observers from America, England, Russia, Africa and other parts of the world too often visited Savarkar Sadan to interview me.  To regulate visitors one or two Gurkhas and Sikhs used to be on service as watchmen at the entrance-door.  (Se Evidence P.W. 57 pages 222 and 223).

 

7.      The Hindu Mahasabha.-  In 1937 or thereabout I was elected the Presidentship of the Hindu Mahasabha and continued to be elected every year as its President for some six successive years, till at last owing to my declining health I resigned the Presidentship.

 

It is enough for the purpose of this case to note that the Mahasabha is a registered association founded by such prominent men as Lala Lajpat Rai and Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya.  Among its Presidents we find such distinguished names as Vijaya Raghavadhariyar, Ramanand Chatterjee, N.C. Kelkar, Bhai Parmanand, Dr. Moonje and others.  It will be noted that some of these founders and Presidents had been Presidents and prominent leaders of the Indian National Congress too. The chief object of the Mahasabha was Hindu Sanghatan, i.e., the political and social consolidation and militarization of the Hindus.  The Hindus being what they call in political science ‘National majority’ in India, the Mahasabha held that their consolidation should be effected in such a way as to render them the very bedrock on which a free and powerful Indian State could be powerfully safely and solidly raised.  It maintained that the Indian State should be essentially a secular State and constituted in such a way that every loyal citizen thereof should have equal rights and duties irrespective of religion, caste or creed.  It did not claim an inch more for the Hindus as Hindus than what was their national due.  But it refused to tolerate that the Hindus should be robbed of what was their due to enable the Moslems to get more than their due, simply because they were Moslems and would not otherwise behave as loyal citizens.  It was putting a premium on treachery.  That is why the Mahasabha opposed the Communal Award, which very nearly meant that three Hindus should have one vote and one Moslem should have three votes. 

 

The Mahasabha rapidly rose to the position of being recognized as one of the three pre-eminent All-India organizations –the Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League.  It had often been called upon to send its representatives at the Round Table Conferences in England and to other consultative bodies.  As its President, I had myself been invited on several occasions to interviews, by different Viceroys and Governors to represent its viewpoint on foremost political questions.  At the time of Cripps’ Mission too, on invitation from the Government I led the Mahasabha deputation to represent its views.  It was the only body of the three foremost All India Organisations, which refused uncompromisingly to accept that clause in the Cripps Scheme, which sought to lay an axe at the very root of the integrity of the Indian State by demanding the vivisection of our motherland. 

 

The Mahasabha had had its branches in all Provinces and almost all districts in India.  Hundreds of thousands of Hindus –from seasonal leaders to rising youths –rallied round the Hindu Sanghatan ideology which the Mahasabha developed and preached and which later on came to be popularly styled as Savarkarism, as in the capacity of the President of the Mahasabha for six continuous years I was naturally looked upon as its authoritative spokesman.  Through my organizational correspondences, tours, writings and speeches I came into personal contact with thousands of leaders, workers and members of Mahasabha all over India.

 

 

  1. It was as one of these numerous Hindu Mahasabha workers and volunteers that Pandit Nathuram Godse got himself specially introduced to me.  Mr. Apte also got introduced to me by a letter stating that he was a Hindu Sabha worker at Nagar and meant to start a Rifle Club, which the Collector had given permission to start.  Dr. Parchure also got introduced to me as the leader of the Gwalior Hindu Sabha.  I heard of Mr. Karkare that he was a Hindu Sabha worker at Nagar and was elected Chairman of the Municipality on Hindu Mahasabha ticket.  I heard of Mr. Badge when he wrote to me that he was a Hindu Sanghatanist worker and sold arms which according to law could be sold without licence.  The other accused Shankar, Gopal Godse and Madanlal were never known to me, nor had I ever heard of them. 

 

  1. Those accused whom I knew as Hindu Sabha workers:-

 

In accordance with the organizational discipline the local, district and provincial branches of the Hindu Mahasabha were required to send reports of their work to my Presidential office at Bombay. From such periodical reports from the Poona Hindu Sabha, I knew that Badge had been working as a paid and at times unpaid propagandist at Poona.  He forwarded to me once or twice the reports of a shop for selling licenced arms, conducted by him, and requested me for some monetary help.  Those letters will be dealt with in my statement later on.  Beyond this, I knew nothing about Badge.  He never came into personal contact with me.  Dr. Parchure used to send me reports of the Hindu Mahasabha work at Gwalior, for a few years.  He wrote to me that he had organized a volunteer corps named “Hindu Rashtra Sena” to help the Hindu Sanghatan movement.  One of the prosecution witnesses says that he himself had been a member of the Sena and used to attend its parades and has given evidence before this Court that ‘the object of this Rashtra Sena was to unite the Hindu youths’, (see P.W. 39, page 137). Since my resignation from the Presidentship some four years ago I had heard nothing from Dr. Parchure.  He too did not come into any personal contact with me worth the name.  I used to hear of Mr. Karkare from reports of the Hindu Sabha at Nagar that he had been tirelessly working for the Hindu militarisation, Sanghatan and Shuddhi-work with Mr. Apte, who wrote to me once or twice of Karkare’s successful Municipal election on Hindu Sabha ticket.  But Karkare never wrote to me nor did he come into personal contact with me (See P.W. 129, page 3).  Since my illness for the last three years or so, I had not even heard of him any time.  Mr. Apte and Pandit Godse got themselves introduced to me as Hindu Sabha workers at Nagar and Poona and later on came to be personally acquainted with me.

 

 

10.    Apte, Godse and their correspondence:-

 

The Hindu Militarization always figured as a very prominent item in the Mahasabha programme.  I learnt from his letter that Apte was doing some work in Nagar in this direction.  On enquiry from leaders in that part I found that it was true and that he had already secured the Government permission from the then Home Member.  Later on Mr. Ape organized a center of Rifle Clubs meeting in Poona presided over by Sir Raghunathrao Paranjpe (See Apte’s letters marked D. 27, and D. 28).  He was then appointed as an Honorary Technical Recruiting Officer by the military authorities and finally he secured King’s Commission in the Air Force.  He worked in the Hindu Sabha too.  Of the 10 to 12 letters written by him to me and produced before the Court almost all are reports of the Rifle Clubs and Hindu Sabha work done by him.

 

Godse too was working on the same lines as Apte.  He had been sending to me reports of his visits to different parts of Maharashtra as a propagandist, regarding the work he did and his views and suggestions in connection with the local Sabha work.  The organizational discipline required every District and Provincial worker to submit such reports to my Presidential office.  Of the 15 to 20 letters produced before the Court written by Godse to me almost all relate to such organizational reports only. 

 

The Prosecution has produced some letters constituting the correspondence of Godse and Apte with me and has dubbed it as its documentary evidence against me.  By pointing out references in the correspondence to ‘Agrani’ my tours and some such other topics, the Prosecution claims to prove some vague association of theirs with me.  But the detailed analysis will show what the association really meant and so far as it went how it was of a perfectly legitimate and legal nature.  I shall prove it on the strength of those very letters which are produced by the Prosecution as its evidence against me. 

 

(a)    Agrani or Hindu Rashtra:-

 

Like all other Hindu Sanghatanist leaders in India, I too had been trying to encourage and aid every effort to start new Mahasabhaite dailies in all Provinces of India.  Apte and Godse had long been trying to start a Marathi daily to propagate the Hindu ideology and pressing me to lend my moral and financial support to them.  When I saw that they had secured financial and moral support from some leading and responsible Hindu leaders sufficient to render their venture feasible, I agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 15,000 on three conditions.  The first was that the advance being a loan, a joint promissory note should be passed on to me signed by Apte and Godse; secondly, the concern should be incorporated as son as possible into a limited company; and the third was that my loan should be converted into the share money of the said company.  Accordingly, both of them passed a promissory note to me signed jointly by them in due course.  An incorporated company named “The Hindu Rashtra Prakashan Ltd.” Was set on foot, registered and my loan too was got transferred into its share-money.  It is on record that many well-known and well-to-do Hindu leaders had contributed large sums ranging from five to ten thousand each.  Seth Gulab Chand Hira Chand (a brother of Seth Walchand Hirachand of the Scindia Steam navigation Co.), Mr. Shingre was ex-Minister of the Bhor State, Mr. Vishnu Pant Velankar a mill-owner and millionaire of Sangli, Shreeman Bhalji Pendharkar a cinema magnate of Kolhapur, Mr. Thopate on whom the distinction of ‘Nagar-Bhushan’ was conferred by the Raja of Bhor, Shreeman Chandrashekhar Agashe, Rao Bahadur Shembekar of Baramati, Shreeman Seth Jugalkishore Birla (see Godse’s letter G-74 D.29) and several others had either handsomely contributed their quota to the share-capital of this company, or to the donation list of the Hindu Rashtra.

 

Every one of these facts quoted in the paragraph above is borne out by evidence of the Prosecution itself (see P.W. 57, pages 233, 234, 243, 254, P.W. 60, page 320 and P.W. 86 page 420 and letters of Godse and Apte marked P.277-P.293).  Godse himself admits that it was not only Agrani but that he knew that I, as a leader of the movement had been helping several papers, such as Vikram, Free Hindusthan and others, morally and financially, (see letter G.70-P.293).

 

It will be clear from the above facts that the Agrani was backed up by me not because it was Apte-Godse’s concern but because it was a Mahasabhaite party paper and was helped not only by me in particular but by numerous responsible and respectable leaders of the Hindu Sanghatanist movement.

 

(b)   The policy of Agrani entirely controlled by Godse and Apte:-

 

Both Godse and Apte started the paper as their own concern and consequently the policy of the paper too was entirely under their control.  Although to secure wide popularity and influence they continued pressing me to allow my name to be associated with the paper, either as chief editor or atleast as founder or patron, yet I never agreed to do so.  I made it clear to them that my position demanded that I should be their well-wisher and supporter, only in common with all other papers throughout India which represented and propagated Hindu Mahasabha ideology as it developed under my lead and was popularly called by them as “Savarkar-Vad”, and that I would support the paper only in so far as it represented it.

 

My photo in Daily Agrani:-

 

Nevertheless Apte and Godse decided of their own accord atleast to print my photo block on the front page of their daily issue as I was the President of the Hindu Mahasabha.  Several other Hindu-minded papers in other Provinces in India too had been printing my photo on their front pages.  So I found nothing objectionable in it.  But curiously enough the Prosecution in its opening speech had made a special mention of this feature, to suggest that it indicated my direct contact of and association with the policy of the paper.  It is very common in India that papers published such photo-blocks on their front pages of each issue.  Some papers printed the photo of Mahatma Gandhi on their front page as a prominent feature in his life-time,-papers which perhaps Gandhiji himself never read or knew of.  The well-known “Kesari” of Poona has a permanent feature the photo of the Great Tilak displayed on its front page.  But surely, even a spiritist will never suggest in a Court of law that it indicates that the departed soul of Lokmanya Tilak should still be held responsible for the policy of the Kesari to-day, and will admit that it is the editor who is, in law and fact, responsible for displaying the photos of leaders and not that the photoed leaders are responsible for the policy of the editor!

 

Still more convincing fact to show that I never personally accepted the responsibility to identify myself with the policy and control of Agrani (i.e. the Hindu rashtra), is provided by the Prosecution itself.  They have produced a letter written by me to Godse and Apte jointly (see SGA-# Exhibit P.302).

 

The occasion to write that letter was this.  Apte and Godse after a year or so they had started the paper, secured a press for the same.  Thereupon they saw me and insisted again on the proposal that if I agreed to identify myself with the policy of the paper by allowing my name to be written in the agreement, at least as a founder or patron they would be in a position to secure the press on better and easier terms.  For reasons given above I could not do so.  After they left, I felt that it was much better that should send a written note to them, so that my name may not be misused through misunderstanding real or otherwise, and that the policy of the paper should continue to be entirely theirs.  Consequently I (Savarkar) write about one point very clearly so that any confusion in the oral talk it may not be lost sight of.  (i)  It must appear in writing in the agreement that the policy of Agrani must remain exclusively and unconditionally in the hands of the you two (Godse and Apte).”

 

(c)    I never wrote in “Agrani”:-

 

Messers. Apte and Godse pressed me even from the very first issue of Agrani to write for it any small note I could.  They suggested that they would publish my articles in the privileged editorial columns too (See Godse’s letter G-61, dated 10th March 1944 - P.291).  But I could not and never did write anything specially for “Agrani”.  Hundreds of leading journals without party considerations throughout India and abroad used to request me for some written contribution.  I would have been partial if I wrote to some and failed to write for others.  Besides, I had so much table work to do for the Hindu Sanghatan movement and write so much independently on its account that I as a rule declined to write specially for any journal whatsoever.  Again, my statements and articles released for the press in general and broadcasted by the press agencies were already so numerous and so varied that there did not seem any necessity to write specially for special papers.  The Agrani could and did publish those my public press statements, notes and special messages issued and signed by me.  But besides that I wrote nothing for it.  I regretted it, but could not make ‘Agrani’ an exception.  This fact can be incontestablt borne out by Prosecution itself.  The ‘Agrani’ could and did publish those my press statements, notes and special messages issued and signed by me.  But besides that I wrote nothing for it.  At times Apte and Godse were highly displeased on this account.  I regretted it, but could not make ‘Agrani’ an exception.  This fact can be incontestably borne out by referring to the letters sent to me by Godse, Apte and which Prosecution itself has produced as their exhibits.  Only one extract from them need be quoted here.  The Prosecution translates it thus:-

                     The letter of Godse marked G-70 (Exhibit P/293) says:-

“For the daily newspaper ‘Agrani’ you have put into our hands a large sum of rupees fifteen thousand without taking any security whatsoever but merely on a promissory note.

 

“On the 25th day of this month i.e. 25 days after today the daily – “Agrani” – will complete two years…We attracted the well-to-do supporters who invested their capital in the press for “Agrani”…’

 

“When we opened before you (Savarkar) the financial aspect of “Agrani” we noticed you to be labouring under the misunderstanding that we are asking you (Savarkar) to tear off the promissory note passed to you by us…”

 

“Shriman Gulab Chand had come here last Monday.  We had a talk with him.  He had sent us rupees five thousand for a period of one month…”

 

“Although I remember the very substantial financial aid rendered by to ‘Agrani’ and although I can see that ‘Vikram’ and ‘Free-Hindusthan’ too are in need of your help, I would wish to place before you the following facts…”

 

“…My suggestion is that you should invest further ten thousand rupees in this newspaper, and should charge interest on the whole amount, i.e. on rupees twenty-five thousand at the rate of three per centum…”

 

“Now I will write about another part (aspect) of this newspaper.  Gandhiji’s ‘Harijan’ has been restarted.  At least ten columns of writings in Gandhiji’s own name and on a variety of topics appear in that paper.  Unfortunately ‘Agrani’ did not get even the slightest benefit (privilege) of your (Savarkar’s) writing, ‘Kesari’ had direct benefit of (Lokmanya) Tilak i.e. his writings.  In ‘Harijan’ Gandhi is himself writing (articles)…”

 

“As soon as your health improves than what it is, you please write at least one article every week and not only on politics or Hinduism, but on revolution, mechanization, physics, intellectualism, literature, history, philosophy, poetry and such variety of subjects.  This is my repeated prayer which I offer with folded hands…”

 

“It is not within propriety to speak in terms of money to you (Savarkar).  If you begin to contribute articles to the ‘Agrani’ regularly and on various topics, then with the intention that a part of the profit which ‘Agrani’ makes may be spent in your worship and out of devotion (for you).  I shall send you (Savarkar) rupees one hundred per month…”

 

It is needless to mention that in spite of the sincere but silly suggestion about paying me for any writings, I could not write in Agrani, nor could I advance any more financial help to it for reasons already explained above.

 

(d)    Godse and Apte on tours with me:-

 

The prosecution has made much of the fact that Godse and on a few occasions Apte had joined the party which accompanied me on some of my tours.  Out of the seventeen letters from Godse which the Prosecution has exhibited, not less than ten are produced before the Court only to prove the simple fact that Godse wished and at times did accompany me.  Whenever I went on tour, number of distinguished leaders and workers used to join my party from station to station.  At times the parties were so large that special bogies had to be reserved for my tours.  During the last eight years or so I had undertaken not less than a hundred or so long tours and visited and addressed thousands of places – cities to villages throughout India.  Out of these on some ten to twelve tours only Godse or Apte might have accompanied me.  Nay, further than that it would seem from a reference to the letters produced by the prosecution itself that Pandit Nathuram was allowed to join my party on tours on his own pressing requests and was sometimes told that it was regretted that he could not be included in the party for giving equal chances to other equally enthusiastic volunteers.  Some extracts from Godse’s letter are so relevant to prove the facts above as to demand quotations below.  Prosecution itself has translated the letters thus:-

 

             In his letter, dated 10th November 1941 (marked G-26) Exhibit P.278) Godse says :-

“P……….Please let me know in reply as to when I should come to Bombay for the Assam tour and the date and train of your (Savarkar’s) intended departure.  Many good workers in Maharashtra have been expressing a desire to acquire experience and education to be imbibed from the point of the Hindu Sabha by catching you (Savarkar) while you are in a tour ……..”  “……….Yesterday at Satara Barister Vithalrao Karandikar expressed such a desire to me and he also asked me to write and convey the same to you  (Savarkar).  He is prepared to meet his own expenses incurred during the journey…………..He has keen desire to spend fifteen days in your (Savarkar’s) association, and for that purpose he is going to meet the cost of the journey out of his own pocket.  Therefore, I think that you (Savarkar) might give him your consent to join you in the tour …………..”.

The letter, dated 21st August 1942 written by Godse, marked G-38 (Exhibit P. 281) reads as follows :-

“………..It seems that the (meeting of the) Working Committee to be held on the 29th promises (in going) to be of great importance.  ……….Similarly many other (non-members) people have also been  called by you (Savarkar) to this meeting.   So if there is no objection to my attending the same then I desire to attend if it is possible to be included amongst the men who are going with you”.

Godse’s letter dated 24th August 1942, marked G-39 (Exhibit P.282) reads :-

“The Delhi session is an important one, hence please see if I can be taken to Delhi as a member of the President’s (Savarkar’s) party.”

 

            In letter marked G 43 (Exhibit P.284)  Godse writes to the effect, “I would wish to go in advance of you, before you go to preside at Kanpur, to do Hindu propaganda ahead.  Others are pressing you to send them.  Thereby my name is likely to be dropped (by you).  So please remember me and send to me to tour in United Provinces.”

 

            In G-45 (Exhibit P.286) Godse writes to the effect, “Please note that when you (Savarkar) go to Delhi for Working Committee meeting I wish to go to Delhi with your party. I am willing to travel on the servant’s ticket even, with any second class one your party has”.

            My Secretary wrote to Godse on another occasion thus :-

“Thanks for your desire to go to Delhi (with the President) But as it has been decided beforehand to take Mr. Bhagwat with us (Savarkar’s party) we do not propose to trouble you this time”.  (See SG-5 Exhibit P. 299).

            At times Godse joined my parties on tours as a press representative and published their vivid description in various papers.  But other pressmen too did the same.  Godse used to be only one of them.

 

            (11) I submit that the above analysis of the so called documentary evidence produced by the Prosecution, proves it indisputably that Godse and Apte were only associated with me in so far as the Maha Sabha work was concerned.  Not only that but amongst those thousands of men great and small, who were associated with me in Hindu Sanghatan cause Godse and Apte also were only two.  That is all.  They were neither specially chosen, nor exclusively trusted.  The respect and reverence which they cherished towards me was also shown to me and expressed in similar terms by thousands of workers and leaders throughout India.  There is not a word or a hint in those 25 letters which constitute  the Godse – Apte correspondence, to suggest otherwise than that my association with them was strictly restricted to the Maha Sabha cause and its activities which had been highly patriotic and public, legitimate and legal.  How absurd, unfair and unjust would be any effort on the part of the Prosecution in alleging this legitimate association as an evidence against me in connection with a criminal case will be dealt with later on in my statement.

 

            (12)  Badge’s evidence – (P.W. 57)

            (A)  The first incident in connection with his visit with Savarkar which Badge mentions is told on Page 199 of his deposition.  “In 1944-45 after attending a meeting at Gawalia Tank, Bombay, some 30-40 persons went to see Savarkar at Savarkar Sadan”.  ‘I was one of  them’, continues Badge, “a private meeting was held there. Tatyarao addressed it.  Then I was introduced to Tatyarao as the owner and proprietor of the “Shashtra Bhandar”.  He complimented me and said that I was doing good work and asked me to continue it”.

            Firstly, in this there is nothing incriminating me.    Because Badge says that at that time (i.e. 1944-45) he was selling those weapons only which required no licence to sell them and could be legally possessed.  (P.W. 57, pages 228, 229).  Prosecution itself has produced two letters of Badge sent to Savarkarji and which go to prove conclusively that Badge was then dealing in arms which could be lawfully sold.  He says in this very deposition before this Court, (P.W. 57, page 242) “I sent letters to Tatyarao as I wanted to send a report of Shashtra Bhandar to him.  The report was correct.  Till then i.e. year 1943, I had not seen a pistol.  I was dealing in weapons not requiring licence till 1947.  It was only only in the middle of 1947 that I first saw a revolver.  I started dealing in ammunition (such as pistols, bomb etc.,) from the middle of 1947”.  Badge says again on page 229 of his evidence that he was prosecuted for selling arms but was acquitted as he sold only those arms which required no licence.

 

            Thus, even if the allegation of Badge be true that when he met me, I appreciated the fact that Badge was selling arms, there is nothing objectionable.  Badge was then and later on till the middle of 1947 selling only licensed arms.  The prosecution evidence itself as shown above proves it.

 

            Secondly, the Hindu Mahasabha itself had ever been demanding the repeal of the Arms Act and publicly pressing for military training and the issue of licences to sell arms as it was done in England.  I myself had led the movement as it was quite legitimate and legal.

 

(B)     The second incident narrates on page 200 an informal meeting at Savarkar Sadan

which Badge alleges he attended. He says “it was held at the end of 1946 or at the which Badge alleges he attended. He says “it was held at the end of 1946 or at the beginning of 1947 before or after a Sammelan at the Chhabildas High School in Dadar.  About 40 to 50 persons went to Savarkar Sadan.  I was one of them.  Savarkar addressed the informal gathering and said the policy of the Congress was detrimental to Hindus.  Moslems should be boycotted economically and in case they attacked us the Hindus should be ready to retaliate and resist.  Hindus should therefore learn to use weapons” (P.W.57, page 200).

 

            Even supposing what Badge alleges was true, still the meeting could have no connection with this conspiracy case.  I am alleged to have spoken on Hindu-Muslim question and to have said Hindus should resist if Moslems  attacked.  It is perfectly legitimate to ask others to exercise the right of self-defence and is even legal. Further, it is not alleged that I said that Hindus should attack the unoffending Moslems which might have been objectionable.  On the whole this piece of Badge’s evidence does in no way incriminate me and has no connection with this particular conspiracy with which I stand charged.

            But the fact is that no such meeting took place at my residence and no speech was made by me at all.  This whole story told by Badge is altogether baseless.

 

(C)     In the third incident related by Badge in his evidence (P.W.57 page 200) he says that

he was present in another informal meeting of Hindu Sabha workers in Savarkar Sadan in connection with the work done by Parmekar and Bakhale and a group photo including Savarkar, Dr.  Moonje and others with Badge was taken.  This is all.  Badge himself tells further on in his cross-examination (Badge’s evidence page 250) that Badge knew that both Parmekar and Bakhale were doing Hindu refugee work Badge says again “Parmekar and Bakhale at that time used to look after the safety of the Hindu passengers during Hindu Moslem riots at Bombay”  (Badge’s evidence page 229).  So there was nothing objectionable in a  meeting informally held in connection with their legitimate refugee work.  Badge too does not say a word more regarding this meeting.  This piece of his evidence is, therefore, altogether harmless and has no connection with this conspiracy case as a material fact.

 

(D)    In the fourth incident eited by Badge in his deposition (page 203) he says, “Apte,

Godse and I proceeded to Savarkar Sadan.  On reaching his house Apte took the bag from my hand and then Apte told me to wait outside.  Apte and Godse went inside.  They came back 5 or 10 minutes later.  Apte had the bag with him, when he came out”.  Then they brought a car and went to Dixitji Maharaj etc., etc.  This was on 14th January 1948 at about 9 p.m.

           

Firstly, herein Badge makes no mention anywhere of my name, so it only comes to this that Apte and Godse visited Savarkar Sadan for 5 to 10 minutes.  But visiting Savarkar Sadan does not necessarily mean visiting Savarkar.  Apte and Godse were well acquainted with Damle, Bhide  and Kasar who were always found there on the ground-floor and Bhide and Damle resided there.  These facts Badge himself has told in his evidence (page 223, 230 etc.)  So Apte and Godse might have gone to see their friends and co-workers in Hindu Mahasabha cause who lived on the ground-floor, or to the phone or to see those other workers of the Hindu Mahasabha who sat reading in the Reading Room, and both of them went out within 5 or 10 minutes.

            Badge clearly says that Apte had the bag with him when he came out.  There is not a word said by Badge which can show that Apte went inside the house to keep the bag.

            Further on Badge clearly admits that the bag was kept by them in Dixit Maharaj’s house that very night.

 

            Secondly, it should be noted moreover that both Apte and Godse deny it and state they never went with Badge and the bag to Savarkar Sadan as alleged.  Thirdly, there is no independent evidence produced by the Prosecution to corroborate this incident.  Consequently,  this whole story of ‘Badge and the bag’ cannot have an evidentiary value at all.

 

            (E) The fifth incident narrated by Badge on page 205 of his deposition relates to a talk between Apte , Godse and Badge, on the 15th January 1948.  Badge says, “Apte, Godse and myself came out of the house of Dixit Maharaj and stood in the compound of the temple.  Apte asked me to go to Delhi with them.  I asked what was the work there.  Apte told me that Tatyarao had decided that Gandhiji, Nehru and Suhrawardy should be finished and had entrusted that work to them”.

 

            First of all this is hearsay, for Badge had not heard it directly from  Savarkar (Tatyarao), nor had he heard himself when Savarkar was telling Apte or anyone else to finish Gandhi, Nehru and Suhrawardy.  It is Apte who tells Badge what Savarkar is alleged tohave told Apte.

 

            Secondly, taking it for granted that Badge himself is telling truth when he says Apte told him this sentence, the question still remains whether what Apte told Badge is true or false.  There is no evidence to show that I had ever told Apte to finish Gandhi, Nehru and Suhrawardy.  Apte might have invented this wicked lie to exploit Savarkar’s moral influence on Hindu Sanghatanists for his own purposes.  It is the case of the prosecution itself that Apte was used to resort to such unscrupulous tricks.  For example; Apte is alleged to, have given false names and false addresses to hotel keepers and others and collected arms and ammunition secretly which were not allowed by the law to be sold or possessed without licences.

 

            Thirdly, both Apte and Godse deny emphatically the allegations that they had ever told

Badge any such lies regarding me and that in order to save his skin and secure pardon as an approver Badge had told these lies to incriminate me under Police pressure or to solicit their pleasure as he knew that the Police were extremely anxious and desperately trying to get some evidence true or false to implicate me in this case.

 

            Fourthly, from the Prosecution point of view this part of Badge evidence is the only material part so far as I am concerned.  But an approver’s statements are not to be taken as reliable unless and until they are corroborated, in material particulars by independent and good evidence.  But this very part of Badge’s evidence against me is not at all corroborated any other independent and reliable evidence which the Prosecution could produce.

 

            (F) The sixth incident as alleged by Badge took place on the 17th January 1948.  He says in his deposition on page 207 thus, “Godse, Apte and myself (Badge) and Shankar took a taxi and drove.  Godse said, let us have the last ‘Darshan’ of Tatyarao.  We drove to Savarkar Sadan.  Shankar was asked to wait outside the compound.  We three entered Savarkar’s house, Apte asked me (Badge) to wait in the room on the ground floor.  Godse and Apte then went unstairs.  They came down after 5 to 10 minutes.  Godse and Apte, as they came upstairs were followed by Tatyarao immediately.  Tatyarao said, “Be successful and come back” (YASHASVI HOUN YA).  Tatyarao said these words to Apte and Godse.  We four then got into the taxi leaving Savarkar’s house and proceeded towards Ruia College.  Apte told me in the taxi that Tatyarao had said that Gandhiji’s hundred years were over.  Apte further said that there was no doubt that our work would be successfully finished”.  They then proceeded to the house of Afzulpurkar etc.etc.

 

            Firstly, I submit in this respect that Apte and Godse did not see me on 17th January 1948 or on any other day near about and I did not say to them “Be successful and come back” and I had never predicted that Gandhiji’s hundred years were over, to Apte or to any one else.

 

            Secondly, assuming that what Badge says about the visit is true, still as he clearly admits that he sat in the room on the ground floor of my house and Apte and Godse alone went upstairs, he could not have known for certain whether they could or did see me at all or returned after meeting someone of the family of the tenant who also resided on the first floor of the house.  Taking again for granted that Apte and Godse did see me and had a talk with me, still it was impossible for Badge to have any personal and direct knowledge of what talk they had with me for the simple reason that he could not have either seen or heard anything happening upstairs on the first floor from the room in which he admits he was sitting on the ground-floor.  It would be absurd to take it as a self-evident truth that simply because Apte and Godse went upstairs alone, they must have talked with me about some criminal conspiracy only.  Nay, it is far more likely that they could have talked about anything else but the alleged conspiracy.

 

            Especially so because  the prosecution evidence itself proves that on that day Badge, Apte and Godse drove by that very car to a number of persons all over Bombay from one and to the other for quite different objects and had talked on quite different works other than the conspiracy to kill Gandhiji.  For example; they went to Afzulpurkar and talked regarding Nizam Civil Resistance movement, and got money as the prosecution witness Afzulpurkar has deposed.  They went to the owner of the dyeing works Seth Charandas Meghaji whom Apte met alone and yet spoke with him about the Nizam  State only and got money, for Nizam State Resistance (see evidence of prosecution witness Seth Charandas Meghaji).  They went in between to Kurla and saw Patwardhan, Patankar, Kale, etc.etc. (see P.W. 86,page 418), talked with them and got money in connection with the ‘Daily Agrani’ and “Hindu Rashtra Prakashan” and so on.  It is thus far more likely that Apte and Godse might have met Savarkar, if they met him at all and talked to him upstairs about Hyderabad, Civil Resistance or the ‘Daily Agrani’ or any other Hindu Sabha work or only enquired about his health and returned.  They had talked with all others that whole day long regarding these topics alone and nothing about any conspiracy as is proved by the Prosecution evidence itself.

 

            Thirdly, the same reason disproves Badge’s allegation wherein he says, “Within 5 or 10 minutes only Apte and Godse returned downstairs.  They were immediately followed by Savarkar.  Savarkar said to Godse and Apte “be successful and come back”.  Even if it is assumed that I said this sentence it might have referred to any objects and works referred to above such as the Nizam Civil Resistance, the raising of funds for the daily paper, ‘Agrani’, or the sale of the shares of Hindu Rashtra Prakashan Ltd., Company in which I was financially interested or any other legitimate undertaking.  As Badge knew nothing as to what talk Apte and Godse had with me upstairs, he could not assert as to what subject my remark “Be successful etc.” referred.

 

            Fourthly, the sentence which Badge alleges that Apte told him while driving to other house after leaving my house to the effect that I told Apte that “Gandhiji’s hundred years were over”, - is a hearsay and no evidence against us.  For, Apte told Badge what I was alleged to have told Apte.  Badge did not hear me personally saying this sentence to Apte.  Apte might have told a lie that I said so to Apte.  There is nothing to prove and corroborate that I really said so to Apte.

 

            So, whether Badge has lied or Godse and Apte have lied to exploit the moral influence which my name exercised on people to further their alleged criminal conspiracy, in either case it cannot incriminate me in the absence of any independent direct and material proof to connect me with the criminal knowledge of or participation in that conspiracy.

 

            Fifthly, and above all, both Godse and Apte positively deny that they ever spoke these sentences to Badge.  Apte and Godse moreover deny this whole incident which Badge alleges to have taken place on the 17th January 1948 and state that they never drove with Badge or others on that day to Savarkar Sadan and never visited Savarkar himself.  This contradiction on Apte and Godse’s part of the whole story as told by Badge, cuts the very ground from under Badge’s allegations.

 

            Sixthly, Badge alleges that on the occasion of this above visit to Savarkar Sadan he with Apte and Godse had hired the taxi belonging to Kotian as a driver.  This taxi driver Kotian (P.W.80) says in his deposition (on page 391 and 392), “At Shivaji Park I stopped with the taxi.  The four passengers got down.  So far as I could see they went upto the second house from the corner of the road on my right.  They came back to the taxi in about five minutes time”.  Now if this taxi driver was brought to corroborate Badge’s story, then so far as this incident relating to me is concerned he fails to do it.  The taxi-driver does not exactly locate my house; he does not know its name; he does not say a word as to whom his passengers wanted to visit in the house; he does not positively mention that it was precisely the second house but only vaguely says that “As far as I could see from the distance at which I stopped it was the second house up the road on my right hand”.  He only says he saw them going only up to the house.  He does not say that he saw them entering the house.  Thus, his evidence fails to corroborate Badge’s allegations regarding his visit to my house, and other details.  On the contrary, instead of corroborating Badge, Kotian’s evidence serves only to contradict him materially.  For, Kotian says (page 392) that they came back to the taxi in about five minutes.  Kotian says further in his cross-examination that as a taxi driver he had to be  very particular about timing.  So his timing could be relied upon.  But, for Badge’s story to be true they could not have returned back to the taxi earlier than at least 20-25 minutes time.  To go from the square where  Kotian says : “He stopped with his taxi up the house and through its yard to the room inside must take at least ten minutes”.  After that Badge says Godse and Apte went up stairs and took five to ten minutes before they came down stairs, and then they returned to the taxi.  So they could not have came back to the taxi within less than twenty to twenty-five minutes.  This contradiction between the taxi-driver’s evidence and Badge’s story does show that the latter is unreliable or, as it is more likely, both deserve to be rejected as evidence against me at any rate.  (See the note on the left side page (24-A) as regards Shankar’s contradiction on Badge’s allegation on this point).

 

NOTE.------Seventhly :-

 

            It should be specially noted that Shankar too contradicts Badge regarding this incident.  To the question asked by the Court regarding Badge’s allegation that Shankar too got down from the taxi and accompanied them (Badge, Apte and Godse) to Savarkar Sadan but was asked to wait outside the house while they three entered the house, Shankar replied, “I went with them in the taxi to ‘Shivaji-Park’.  There the taxi stopped. Badge, Apte and Godse got down and went somewhere.  But I stayed in the taxi and did not go with them.  I did not know where they went.  I had not even heard of  Savarkar Sadan”.  To the second question put to him by the Court, if it was true that Apte told Badge that Tatyarao told Apte, “Gandhiji’s hundred years were numbered, etc. etc.”.  Shankar replied.  “They were talking among themselves in Marathi and English but I was sitting on the front seat in the taxi by the driver and as I did not know either Marathi or  English I could neither hear nor understand what they talked”.

 

            To sum up, Badge’s allegation, that he with Apte, Nathuram and Shankar drove in the taxi belonging to Kotian the drivr and visited the Savarkar Sadan  on 17th January 1948 is corroborated by none and contradicted by everyone of these very persons.

 

(13)            In his deposition at page 220 Badge says that he decided to join Apte and Godse

going to Delhi to finish Gandhiji and others because Godse and Apte had helped him several times monetarily; that he had always worked with them and done as told by them; and as Apte had given him to understand that Tatyarao Savarkar had given orders to carry out the mission Badge thought it was his duty to carry out the command.

 

            In this behalf I submit :-

 

            Firstly, there is not an iota of independent proof to show that I ever told Apte any such criminal work.  Apte might have invented this lie or Badge was telling a lie.  In either case this allegation of Badge cannot incriminate me for reasons already enumerated above.

 

            Secondly, if Badge had really decided to join, the conspiracy on 15th January 1948 as alleged, then a man like Badge, who from his own evidence does not at all seem in any way reckless of his life or personal safety nor to be a simpleton, must have in the ordinary course of human conduct and nature, asked me in person if I had really given such an order to Apte.  Especially so as Badge himself says that he went with Apte and Godse to Savarkar Sadan only two days later on 17th January 1948, and maintains that I said within the hearing of Badge the words as alleged, “Be successful and come back”.  Badge could have immediately asked me, confronting Apte and Godse there and then, and got himself assured if such a dangerous order was really given by me to carry out which the very life of Badge had to be risked.  But Badge did nothing of the sort.

 

            Thirdly, if Badge had really any such extraordinary and reckless reverence for my alleged order as to make him risk his very life and straightway start for Delhi on such a dangerous mission, how was it that he precipitately ran away without fulfilling his promise to attack Gandhiji from the front, why he concealed himself and fled away and as he admits had thenceforth “the only thought of saving himself ?”

 

            Fourthly, if Badge went to Delhi at all he might have gone for monetary considerations; or because he expected a large demand for and sale of the “stuff” in which he dealt among the refugees in Delhi and the Punjab or for any other reason save and except the alleged “order”.

 

            (14)       Badge’s motive and character – The detailed analysis of Badge’s evidence as given above in so far as it relates to me, proves that it consists mostly of fabrications and of the rest which has no evidentiary value against me.  Badge’s motive in giving false evidence against me is clear.  He saw that the police were working frantically on the basis of some shadowy suspicions they had to rope me in this case by hook or crook.  Badge must have realized that the Police might be hoping that if but they could implicate some outstanding public leading figure in this case, they could bank on sensational publicity and self-advertisement for themselves throughout the country, which otherwise was not likely to happen.  In the depressing and harassing circumstances which he himself was labouring under, as an accused on such serious charges, a man like Badge must have felt that the only way to save his skin was to turn an approver and to render himself acceptable to the Police as an indispensable approver, the only implied condition was to bear false evidence against me.  He fulfilled the condition and saved his skin.  That Badge was both too shrewd and unscrupulous is borne out by his character which none else but himself made out throughout the evidence he has given before the Court.  Out of the several statements made in his deposition wherein he admits, even boastfully at times, that he spoke lies, made false pretensions and risked others lives to save his own skin, only a few incidents from his evidence are cited below :-

 

(a)    Badge says, ‘It is true that I was selling bombs grenades, explosives, etc., surreptitiously and without licence and against the law (Badge’s deposition page 228)

(b)    ‘I concealed the ammunition bag in Kharat’s house because my sole aim was that they should not be found with me as I feared my arrest (same page).

(c)    ‘I placed the bag with the two revolvers in the taxi without the knowledge of the taxi-driver because if the revolvers were by chance found in search it would be the taxi-wala who would have been in trouble and arrested and I would have been saved’ (page 240).

(d)    Badge assumed the false name as Bandopant (page215).

(e)    Badge traveled without tickets and bribed ticket collectors (Badge’s deposition, page 237).

(f)     He openly admits that he made false representations to secure money.  He says, “ I was in need of money and wanted Dixit Maharaj to pay me at least the sum of Rs. 350 by buying a revolver from me.  So, I had falsely represented to him that I had purchased that revolver though I had got  it in exchange etc., etc.”.(page 236).

 

It is, therefore, no wonder that an approver like Badge, who is so unscrupulous on his

own admission as quoted above, should have told such falsehoods against me too in order

to save his skin and secure pardon.

 

(15) I have dealt above with that part of Badge’s evidence which is connected directly

with me.  I have shown that inasmuch as as there is not an iota of independent evidence to prove that I had ever decided to finish Gandhiji, Neharu or Suhrawardy or had given any such wicked order to Apte – the whole story of the approver Badge must he rejected, in so far at any rate as it seeks to incriminate me.

 

            But further on it must now be emphasized that even if some part of Badge’s evidence which refers to matters unconnected with me is perchance found by the Court corroborated in some particulars, still that fact cannot by itself be held to corroborate the approver’s evidence against me, so long as it fails to establish my individual connection with or participation in the alleged conspiracy. To elucidate this point I cannot do better than citing below a passage or two from Sarkar’s Evidence Act, 7th Edition, under Section 133 :-

 

“Not only it is necessary that evidence should be corroborated in material particulars, but  

the corroboration should extend to the identity of the accused person.  The accomplice must be corroborated not only as to one but as to all of the persons affected by the evidence and because he may be corroborated in his evidence as to one prisoner, it does not justify his evidence against another being acceptable without corroboration (page 1253)

 

“It is an established rule of practice that an accomplice must be  corroborated by

independent evidence as to the identity of every person whom he impeaches.  The accomplice may know every circumstance of the crime, and while relating all the other facts truly, may, in order to save a friend or gratify an animosity (or to save his skin) name some person as one of the criminals who was innocent of the crime (page 1254)

.

(16) Badge’s  three letters –

The Prosecution has produced three letters, Exhibits P. 87, P.88 and P. 89.’  The first two

letters out of these were sent by Badge to me in 1943 to request me to send some donation in aid of his Shashtra Bhandar, where he used to sell arms for which no licence was required.  Badge has admitted again and again in his deposition that he was a Hindu Mahasabha  Worker and that in the year 1947 he was dealing in those arms only which could be sold without license (P.W. 57, pages 218, 229, 242).  As I was openly leading a movement for the repeal of the Arms Act, the issue of license to sell arms, and the spread of military training, several such letters and reports came to me as the President of the  Hindu Mahasabha, asking for aid.

 

            The third letter is a receipt sent by Badge to Mr. V.G. Damle, my Secretary, who sent as a free gift to the reading room Badge conducted, some books on Hindu Sanghatan and Hindu religion, such as the poems by Saint Tukaram which name is mentioned in the receipt itself.  My office used to send books in connection with Hindu movement worth hundreds of rupees a year as a free-gift to Hindu Sabha reading rooms and libraries all over India.  The files of my office which the Prosecution possesses now, contain numerous such receipts, and bear out this fact.  I submit that these exhibits have no reference at all to the present case and contain nothing incriminating.

 

            (!7)       Evidence of Miss Modak – P.W. 60 :-

            There are only two or three sentences in the testimony of this witness which seem to concern my case.  The witness says on page 277 of her evidence that on 14th January 1948, while in the train, she gathered from their talk that Apte and Godse wished to go to Savarkar Sadan near the Shivaji Park.

           

            It is to be noted that this witness does nowhere say that Godse and Apte wished to go to see me personally.  It must also be noted that going to Savarkar Sadan could not necessarily mean going to see Savarkar.  A glance at the description of Savarkar Sadan given above on the basis of the Prosecution evidence itself, will show that Apte and Godse might have wished to go to that house to visit the several tenants who resided there and who were acquainted with them, or the Hindu Sabha workers who used to gather in the Hindu Sanghatan Office situated on the ground-floor and was in charge of my Secretary who were their friends.  People who used to visit that office did not as a rule come necessarily to see me, as I used to reside on the first floor.  The 

Prosecution witness Badge himself admits this and says in his evidence (page 222) that although he visited this office in Savarkar Sadan several times, he met me only once.

 

            The witness says further on page 278 of her deposition that when she stopped her car opposite Savarkar Sadan, Apte and Godse got down.  She continues : “but I did not see them actually entering the Savarkar Sadan”.

 

            This testimony, therefore, has absolutely no relevance or determinative value in so far as I am concerned.

 

            I submit that I for myself did not see or hear of the coming to my house of both  Apte and Godse or either of them, nor had I seen them together or singly on that day or on days there about.

 

            (18)      Dr. J.C. Jain (P.W. 67) :-

            The only part in which Dr. Jain refers to me directly and definitely in his deposition is found on pages 299-300 where Jain says : “Madanlal told me that Veer Savarkar of the Hindu Mahasabha, when he heard of his (Madan Lal’s) exploits at Ahmednagar, had sent for him, and had had a long talk with him for about two hours.  He then told me that Veer Savarkar had patted him on his back and had said, “carry on”.  That is all.

 

            With reference to this story alleged to be told by Madan Lal to Dr. Jain my submission is as hereunder :-

 

            Firstly, I never had heard of Madan Lal nor did he ever come to me, nor had he ever related his exploits to me.  I did not have a talk with him at any time, I did not pat him on his back for his exploits and did not say, “carry on”.

 

            Secondly, assuming that Madan Lal told Jain the above story of his visit to me, it must be noted that Jain himself has narrated what, he meant by “Madan Lal’s exploits”  at Ahmednagar, on page 299 of his evidence wherein he says “Madan Lal then narrated to me his exploits at Ahmednagar” and then tells that Madan Lal created a row in Patwardhan’s meeting and attacked him; he had organized a volunteer corps for the benefit of the refugees and the Hindus; he had formed a paty at Nagar which was collecting arms and dumping them and that they had driven Moslem fruit stall-holders.  These are in the main referred to, by Jain himself as exploits at Ahmednagar, and just after that Jain mentions that Madan Lal said that he visited Veer Savarkar and told the latter his exploits at Ahmednagar.  Thus it is clear, if the the sequence is closely followed that it is only these or some of these ‘exploits’ which are alleged to have been told to me.  It is only after telling this Madan Lal’s visit to me that Jain proceeds to the latter half of his story and tells on page 300 this : “Madan Lal then told me that his party has plotted against the life of some leader” and that Madan Lal at last gave out the name of Gandhiji as the leader referred to.  It becomes clear by following this sequence of the story that this plot against Gandhiji’s life was quite a separate matter from and was not included in, the former category of the incidents styled by Jain as ‘Madan Lal’s Exploits at Ahmednagar’.  Consequently, it follows that as Madan Lal  is alleged to have told me only his exploits at Ahmednagar, he did not tell me anything  of the said plot of his party against Gandhiji’s life.  Moreover and apart from this inference, the most important point to be noted here is the fact that throughout his evidence Dr. Jain has not uttered a single positive word to support any suggestion that Madan Lal told me of the plot against the life of Gandhiji or that I had any the slightest connection or knowledge of any such party at all.  On the other hand, Jain clearly admitted that he did not know from Madan Lal the names of his party members, nor other details and knew himself next to nothing about it.  (P.W. 67, pages 306 and 308).

 

            I submit therefore that this narration of  Madan Lal’s visit to me even as it stands is of no evidentiary value against me as it fails to connect me individually in any way whatsoever with this alleged conspiracy.

 

            Thirdly, it is to be particularly noted that at no stage had either Dr. Jain or Mr. Angad Singh or the Hon’ble Mr. Desai reduced to writing Madan Lal’s story or even made notes of the same.

 

            No wonder, therefore if the versions of this story given particularly by Dr. Jain, relying exclusively on memory, slippery as an eel as human memory proverbially is, differ from each other.  Especially the present version that part of it, which refers to Madan Lal’s visit to me, and which is the only part  that concerns me, seems clearly ‘cooked up to order’ – under the pressure of the police, for the reasons noted below :-

 

            Fourthly, the above objection raised by me against the verasity of  Dr. Jain’s version of Madan Lal’s story regarding me is indubitably borne out by the fact that Dr. Jain had made no mention of it whatsoever in his statement made before the Magistrate.  In law a statement made under Section 164 Cr.  P. C. carries greater probative force and value than one under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. But in his statement on solemn affirmation before the C. P. Magistrate, Bombay, when the exclusion of the police from the Court freed the conscience of Dr. Jain from their suffocating pressure for a while, Dr. Jain did not tell the present  concocted story about Madan Lal’s visit to me.  It is not that he told it and  the Magistrate failed to take it down, but Dr. Jain himself did not tell it to him.  He states clearly in his evidence at page 303 when crossed : “I also did not state before Magistrate the Madan Lal had told me that  Veer Savarkar had sent for him, had had a long talk with him for two hours, had patted him on his back and had said “carry on”.  Even his statement before the police makes no mention about “carry on”.  In his re-examination before this Court, Dr. Jain tried to disentangle the Prosecution out of this fix and succeeded only in getting it entangled all the more by replying that he did not tell the Magistrate the story of  Madanlal’s visit to me because he had already told it to the Police and the Hon’ble Home Member (Jain’s deoisition, page 311).  But this reply is absurd, for, all other leading details of Madanlal’s story which Jain had told the Police and the Minister, he repeated in his statement before the Magistrate down to the books and the crackers he sold.  And yet he did not tell the Magistrate Madanlal’s alleged visit  to me which the Prosecution seeks now to make the very starting point of the case against me.  The real reason of this must be that Dr. Jain was not till then hardened and prepared to pass on such fabricated stories as true ones on solemn affirmation before the Magistrate.

 

            Fifthly,if  Dr. Jain was really told of such a murderous plot by Madanlal how was it that he did not inform the authorities immediately to frustrate it ?  Dr. Jain admits that he knew that as a citizen it was his duty to help the authorities in unearthing a criminal conspiracy in time (Dr. Jain’s deposition at page 303).  The Home Minister also challenged him later on as to why he did not give the information beforehand.  Jain’s only reply was that he did not take Madanlal’s story about the plot seriously (page 309).  But that this excuse was altogether false is proved by Jain’s own admission that he did take it seriously as to try to tell Jai Prakash “of a lively big conspiracy at Delhi” with a view that the latter might warn the authorities at Delhi (Jain’s deposition at page 301).  If the story was thought so serious as to warn the Government at Delhi, it was surely serious enough to inform the Government of Bombay.   Dr. Jain puts forth another excuse that he was afraid to give that information to the Bombay Police (page 3(8), but he was surely not afraid of the Prime Minister of Bombay, whom he did contact without any hesitation after the bomb-explosion had taken place.  All this confusion and self-contradiction which characterize the evidence, leads only to the irresistible conclusion that Dr. Jain never heard any such story from Madan Lal as is narrated by him now and that it was concocted later on.

 

            Sixthly, the motive too which must have impelled Dr. Jain and Mr. Angad Singh also to concoct this whole story after the bomb-explosion, becomes self evident as soon as one reads their depositions between the lines.  Dr. Jain was admittedly on intimate terms with Madan Lal.  He was receiving letters from and for Madan Lal, some were found in his possession later on.  Many people had known Madan Lal’s connection with Dr. Jain as Madan Lal has visited several persons in order to sell his books.  Consequently, as soon as Dr. Jain read in the ‘Times of India’ on the 21st if January 1948, that a bomb had been exploded at Gandhiji’s prayer meeting and that the name of the man arrested for the offence was Madan Lal, he was naturally startled and feared that he too might get into trouble.  Dr. Jain admits that he read the name of Madan Lal in the ‘Times of India’ before he came forward to contact the authorities (Jain’s deposition at page 301).  Dr. Jain and Mr. Angad Singh seem to have decided to be forearmed against the certainty of Madan Lal’s giving out their intimate connection with him and against the consequent risk.  And what way was better to be forearmed then to pose as brave citizens who offered to help the authorities by furnishing some information true or false about the crime ?  Some morning papers of that day had already hinted of a plot at the bottom of the bomb explosion.  Dr. Jain took that hint as the basis of his story.  He knew that Madan Lal was working amongst the refugees and was Hindu-minded and I was known to the public as a recognized leader of the Hindu Sanghatanists.  If but my name was fitted in the story in connection with Madan Lal and the plot, it was bound to prove a capital stunt attractive both to the police and the public, for providing which, Jain was sure to be forgiven for his failure to inform the authorities of the plot beforehand.  So, Dr. Jain hastened to the Home Member and gave him the first version of his concocted story.  The contradictions and confusion in the evidence of Dr. Jain make the above origin of this ‘story’ more highly probable than otherwise.

 

            Seventhly, Madan Lal has made a statement before this Court in which he has denied that there was any conspiracy to do any harm to Mahatma Gandhi and has also stated that he had never been involved in any such conspiracy.  This renders Dr. Jain’s story all the more untenable.

 

            Eightly, but even if it is assumed that what Dr. Jain says, in so far as it relates to me, is accurate and it is true that Madan Lal told Jain regarding his alleged visit to me, still that by itself cannot prove that what Madan Lal told Jain was in itself true.  Both Jain and Angad Singh regarded Madan Lal as, to quote their own words, a tall-talking young man given to parade his exploits which did not deserve to be taken seriously.  It is but natural to assume that such a youth would try to impress his self-importance on the mind of Dr. Jain by telling one more fancied exploit to the effect that even Veer Savarkar of the Hindu Mahasabha had sent for him and had patted him on his back.  It is admitted that Dr. Jain was not present when Madan Lal visited me, nor had he heard personally the alleged conversation between Madan Lal and myself.  Thus, it all comes to this that Madan Lal told Dr. Jain what I was alleged to have told Madan Lal.  So it was pure hearsay to Jain and he could not have vouchsafed its veracity.  Nor has the Prosecution produced any independent evidence to corroborate Madan Lal’s story in connection with his alleged visit to me.  I submit, therefore, that at least that part of the evidence of Dr. Jain