7 July 1948: The court cross-examined S.C. Rai, from Agra, working as an explosive substances expert with the Government of India's Explosives Factory. He described to the court how he had received certain explosive substances for analyses from the Delhi CID via the office of the chief inspector of explosives, Government of India on 9 February 1948. He described the unexploded hand grenades as extremely lethal explosives. They were British-issued anti-personnel grenades. The other packet contained an unexploded gun cotton slab, which he described as extremely lethal when used with shrapnel.
The next two witnesses were police photographer Kunvar Singh and the administrator of the Telephone Revenue Department of New Delhi, P.R. Kailash. The latter informed the court that his office kept records of all the trunkcalls made from Delhi. A note, which showed that on 19 January a trunkcall had been made from the Delhi telephone number 8024 to Bombay number 60201 at 9.20 am was presented in court. It was a person to person 'urgent' call for Damle or Kasiya*. The Delhi number was registered in the name of the honorary office secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha on Reading Road. Since neither of the two persons requested for were available, the call was cancelled with a charge of two rupees and seventy-five paise. The bill was paid on 19 May. L.B. Bhopatkar, for the first time in the trial, rose to cross-examine the witness. The witness informed the court that the chit was prepared by the operator on duty at the Bombay exchange, at the time the call was cancelled.
Bhopatkar examined the chit and then, handing it over to the judge, he said, 'Kindly look at the bottom of the chit something has been cancelled out and overwritten.' The court examined the chit and found that a word 'Dalai' had been cancelled out and Demello overwritten, the second name written appeared to be 'Kasiya'.
The next on the witness stand was the ticket clerk working at the Old Delhi station, Lala Badrinath, who was brought to prove that Nathuram and Apte had bought tickets for Kanpur on the night of 20 January 1948. He told the court that during his duty hours from 4 pm to midnight on 20 January 1948 he had sold only three first class tickets to Kanpur: ticket nos. 614A, 614B and 615.
The next to take the stand was draughtsman N.N. Kapoor, who had drawn two layout maps of Birla House and the prayer ground on orders from the police.
8 July 1948: The first witness was the booking clerk of the Delhi junction station, Sunderlal, who identified Nathuram and Apte and said that the two had stayed at the retiring room on 29 January 1948, and then identified Karkare as one who had joined the other two. Jannu mochi, the shoeshine boy's testimony was vital as he confirmed that three men had occupied Room 6 of the Delhi junction station's retiring rooms. He pointed to Nathuram, Apte and Karkare as the three men.
9 July 1948: Eight witnesses were examined that day. Madanlal's counsel made a plea that the court should accept the book 'Delhi Diaries' and give it legal validity as a standard reference for establishing the movements, discourses and writings of Gandhi during his last stay in Delhi. All the witnesses gave eyewitness accounts of Gandhi's murder on the 30th. The first to be called was Sgt. Ramchandra of the Royal Indian Air Force. He said he had been transferred from Ambala to Delhi and had been a regular at Gandhi's prayer meetings. He identified Madanlal as the man he had caught on 20 January after the bomb explosion.
The next witness was sub-inspector Amarnath of the Tughlaq Road Police Station, who had been in-charge of the security at Birla House during the prayer meetings. He said on the day Gandhi was murdered he had been standing behind him. 'I heard one bullet being fired and I saw smoke emanating. I leapt at the murderer immediately and caught hold of him by his neck and shoulders. But by the time I caught him he had already fired two more bullets. Sgt. Devraj grabbed the murderer's wrist and disarmed him. We found that the pistol had four more bullets.' He then identified Nathuram Vinayak Godse as the man who had shot and murdered Gandhi.
Nandlal Mehta, a member of Gandhi's entourage, was questioned next. He said that after Gandhi had been shot he supported him and placed his head in Abhabehn's lap. 'Gandhiji breathed his last within a couple of minutes. While bathing his body, I discovered that there were three gunshot wounds on his upper torso. I signed the FIR prepared by the police.' Head Constable Kabul Singh was called next who told the court about the quantities of arms, ammunition and explosives recovered by the police from the various accused. Ratan Singh, a constable, and assistant sub-inspector Dhaluram from the Tughlaq Road Police Station, were called in next. The latter had carried certain parcels to the Phillour Chemical Testing Laboratory on 2 February 1948. The next two witnesses were Assistant Sub- Inspector Parshuram and Head Constable Dharam Singh. Singh had been on duty at Birla House on the 30th and identified Nathuram as the man who had fired at Gandhi.
12 July 1948: The first issue taken up by the court was Madanlal's application about the Delhi Diaries. They contained a detailed description of Gandhi's stay in Delhi from September 1947 to January 1948 and an entire collection of articles written by him and transcripts of his lectures. The public prosecutor raised an objection. The court ruled that such an application should be made when the relevant defence witnesses were being examined.
The first witness to be examined was the superintendent and civil surgeon of Irwin Hospital, Lt. Col. Dr. P.N. Taneja. He had examined Gandhi's body at 8.30 am on 31st January at Birla House. He informed the court that, 'Gandhiji died due to the shock from internal haemorrhaging caused by gunshot wounds due to bullets fired from a pistol, from close range.' He added that, 'Gandhiji's body had also been examined by Dr. Jivraj Mehta before me. I saw five wounds on his body. There was a deep wound on the right side of his chest that had caused a depression oval in shape. There were two wounds on the left side. The entry wounds were l/4"xl/6" and on his back the corresponding exit wounds were l/3"xl/4" in dimension. The two wounds on his back had been caused when two of the bullets pierced his body and came out of his back.' As per instructions by Nathuram, the defence did not cross-examine the witness.
WITNESSES FROM GWALIOR
Jagdish Prasad Goel stated that he had known Parchure since 1941 and identified him. He said that Parchure was the supremo of the Hindu Rashtra Sena, a band of fanatic Hindu youth. 'I was ordered to join the Sena by Parchure and used to attend the parade every morning. I also know Savarkar's secretary Damle who had visited Gwalior in 1941. The next time I saw Apte was in Parchure's dispensary on 28 January 1948.' He pointed towards Nathuram and said he too was present at Parchure's home that day. He then went on to give details about the goings-on at Parchure's dispensary. On being cross-examined by Inamdar, the witness stated, 'I had absconded initially. I was arrested in April from Jhansi.'
The third witness for the day, Sardarilal Verma, a supervisor in the Delhi Trunk Exchange, was called to the stand. He testified about the calls that had been made on 19 January 1948. As mentioned earlier, the number was of the Hindu Mahasabha*. The witness stated that the trunk call had not been cancelled because the caller had been charged twenty-five percent of the call fees. The fees according to the ticket was two rupees and twelve annas, but the fee was mentioned as one rupee and fifteen annas. The witness said he was unaware.
Kulwant Kaur, a Sikh lady operator of the Delhi Telephone Exchange was called to the stand. She was on duty at the switchboard at the time the call was attempted on 19 January 1948. She informed the court that the person who had been called was not available. At that time a new operator was on duty in the inquiry section Miss. G. Phurness, who by mistake wrote 'cancelled' on the ticket. On being cross-examined by Bhopatkar, Kaur said that she did not know the name of the operator on duty in Bombay at that time. The last to take the witness stand was the twenty-six-year old Anglo Indian G. Phurness. 'On realising my mistake I scratched out the word and signed under it. Also by mistake I wrote "12" and then tried to erase it. I don't remember who had scratched out the word "Cancelled".
13 July 1948: The first witness was the fifty-year-old tonga driver from Gwalior, Gariba, who looked very apprehensive. In his testimony, he sa
id, 'Two to three days before the murder I had carried two people who wanted to go to Parchure's house from Gwalior station in my tonga at 11.30 pm. The reins of my horse snapped on the way and so I sent them on in another tonga.' He identified both Nathuram and Apte. Five or six days after Gandhi's murder, Gariba had met Sub-Inspector Mandlik at the Gwalior station. 'Mandlik told me that the allegation that the two people who had stayed at Parchure's home were involved in the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi was a mere rumour. I told Mandlik that I had taken the two people in question half way to Parchure's home. Two hours later I was called to the police station. They did not record my statement at Gwalior station. Mandlik took me with him to Bombay, I stayed there with him.' The other tonga driver also identified Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte.
THREE WITNESSES: RAILWAY EMPLOYEES WORKING ATKANPUR RAILWAY STATION
The next to take the witness stand were three employees working at the Kanpur railway station, inspection clerks Shivpyarelal Dikshit and A.B. Saxena, and Angelina Colestone, who was in charge of cleaning the railway retiring room. All three had seen Nathuram and Apte at the Kanpur station on 21 January 1948. Raghupatirao Handa, another witness who worked as a guide at the Delhi railway station, was present in the first class waiting room when the police seized some luggage from there on the evening of the 30th.
Inamdar, counsel for Parchure, was determined to prove that the proceedings against his client were illegal since his client was a citizen of Gwalior state. He claimed that all evidence, verbal or written, submitted by the prosecution to prove his client's guilt was also illegal, hence the proceedings against his client should be quashed. He further argued that since his client's confession was recorded by a civil judge and not a magistrate, that too should be rejected. Daftary argued that he should be allowed to prove that Parchure had made a confession in Gwalior in the presence of a magistrate and called upon Magistrate First Class Saiyad Ali Mazahar Ali Rizvi to the witness stand.
14 July 1948: Parchure's wife, Susheelabai was present in court that day. She had met her husband in jail the previous day.
In an effort to delay the court's proceedings, Bannerjee submitted a plea raising an objection to Rizvi's appearance during the trial. This was a very surprising move since the testimony of Rizvi would only be used to prove Parchure's involvement in the conspiracy; it would not affect either Madanlal's fate or that of the other accused. The next witness to take the stand was Manzar Ali who said, 'I remember that I had gone to the home of the accused Parchure on 27 February 1948. Police Superintendent Khijr Muhammad and CID Inspector Mandlik accompanied me. We first went to the Park Hotel near the railway station. A police officer brought Apte down. Apte told us.that he could show us the wall in Dr. Parchure's home which had been used for target practice. There were policemen from Bombay and Gwalior in the posse that accompanied me to Dr. Parchure's home. We went from the Park Hotel to Dr. Parchure's home in a special car. The car had dark tinted window glasses which were rolled up.' Replying to the objections raised by the defence to the testimony of Manzar Ali, the prosecution counsel said that Ali's testimony would enable the court to understand the long-standing relationship between Apte and Parchure.
The second witness that day was twenty-two-year-old Madhukar Keshav Kale, a clerk working for the Gwalior state administration. In his statement he said, 'I have been associated with the Hindu Rashtra Sena since 1940-41. I have known Parchure for the past five to seven years. Before May 1947 I used to visit Parchure's home regularly. After that I stopped as I had taken up a government job. Parchure held an important position in the Sena. I know Dandavate too, he was an office-bearer of the Sena. Prior to Gandhi's murder, I met Parchure once or twice during the month of January. On 28 January while going to withdraw money from the bank, I went to Parchure's home at around 12.30 in the afternoon. When I entered, I found him sitting with three other persons. One of them was Dandavate. I later found out that the other two were Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte.' He added that the two were unsuccessfully trying to press the triggers of a couple of pistols, and when they failed to do so, they asked Dandavate to get them better pistols. Thereafter, they went into the yard, and practised firing the pistol.
Kale continued, 'I left Parchure's home at about 1.30 pm, and after withdrawing money from the bank, I went home. I did not meet Parchure on the 29th. At around six in the evening of 30 January I met Parchure in front of the Maratha Boarding House. By then I had heard the news of Mahatma Gandhi's murder on the radio news bulletin. I told Parchure about Gandhiji's death. Parchure asked me if Gandhiji had died naturally or had been murdered. I told Parchure that I did not know the details. Then I accompanied Parchure to his shop in the market. A person called Madhukar Khire also came to his shop. After this a lot of rumours started flying around Gwalior city about the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. I had not heard the name of the murderer till then. I asked Parchure to down the shutter of his dispensary due to the death of the Mahatma. Parchure agreed and after closing down his dispensary, I returned home.' He said he learnt the following day that it was Nathuram who had killed Gandhi. 'On the 1st, I narrated the entire incident to my mother and also my friends, Patwardhan and Pawar. 'he former pressurised me to give all the information to the Gwalior government. Patwardhan took me in his car to Home minister Ghule.' Kale then identified Parchure.
15 July 1948: A twenty-year-old student from Gwalior, M.B.Khire, was called to the witness stand. Khire said that he had knownParchure for the past five to six years. On hearing the news about Gandhi's murder, he went to Parchure's dispensary and told him thatit would not be right to continue to oppose his policy and philosophy hence forth. 'Parchure got very annoyed and asked me that since I was so impressed by Gandhiji's thought, was I thinking of sharing my wife with Gandhiji? I asked Parchure what kind of person could havemurdered Mahatma Gandhi. He said he must be someone like us. It hen thought of going home, but then changed my mind and went along with Parchure to the Rajput Boarding House. Parchure met Ramdayal Singh and said, "I have completed my job, now you complete your part of the assignment".' As a parting shot Khire added that Home minister Ghule did not ask Bhave, Patwardhan or him any questions and neither did he note down Kale's statement.
After a small break Ramdayal Singh, a thirty-seven-year-old zamindar and president of the Rajput Seva Sangh, was called to testify. He said he learnt of the murder on the 30th itself and decided to organise a condolence meeting at the boarding house. Singh said, 'Parchure came up to me and said—"At last a good deed has been done. An enemy of Hindu dharma has been killed. The man who murdered Gandhiji, is our own man. The man who exploded a bomb a few days back was also our man. It is true, the gun used to murder Gandhiji was sent from Gwalior. The man who murdered Gandhiji, came from South India to Gwalior and then went on to Delhi".' He continued, 'I did not react to the inflammatory talk, but my friend Jagunnath Singh shouted at Parchure—"Shut up and get lost from here". Then Parchure and his companions went away.'
Next to take the stand was Jagunnath Singh, a forest contractor operating from Gwalior. He too, corroborated Ramdayal Singh's statement. Jagunnath pointed at Savarkar and called him Parchure. On returning to the witness stand he realised his mistake and said, 'Oh, Dr. Parchure is the one sitting behind that person.'
16 July 1948: The first two witnesses today were Lambardar Gugan Singh of the Delhi Police and Sub-Inspector Biharilal from the Parliament Street Police Station. The latter had seized one bedding and two bags from the Delhi railway station. The court sat for only fifty minutes that day.
19 July 1948: The prosecution called on Magistrate First Class R.B. Atal of Gwalior. On taking the stand, he said, 'On 17th February Superintendent Thorat Patil brought me a letter. I was told that the letter was written by Inspector Balakrishnan of the CID. The letter requested that I record the statement of Dr. D.S. Parchure, who was being held by the military at Gwalior Fort. I received the letter on the evening of 17 January. I went to the Fort accompanied by Thorat Patil, Khijr Muhamm
ad and a couple of other police officers. When we went to the cell where the accused was held, we were accompanied by the Fort Commandant Major Chatrey. Our car was stopped near the barrack where Parchure was being held. We climbed up the staircase and walked to the cell. The major entered the cell first and then we stepped in one by one. I then asked Parchure if he wanted to make a confessional statement. Parchure nodded his head and said, "Yes." ' Atal then went on to give details of the meeting as has been narrated in an earlier chapter.
After reading out Parchure's confessional statement, the witness continued, 'I carried Parchure's confession with me when I returned home. Two or three days later I sealed the confession in an envelope and sealed and stamped it with my personal seal. I then deposited the envelope in the Imperial Bank of India. On 6 April 1948 I handed it over to secretary for external and political affairs of Gwalior state.' Atal then identified Parchure.
Parchure's case was very interesting. The National Defence Council and Committee established by the Hindu Mahasabha-RSS combine refused to handle his defence. Parchure had publicly boasted about his involvement in Gandhi's murder, but when he had to face the police, he began confessing! When the National Defence Council was established rumours had already gained ground that there was someone who was providing all the details, which were enough even to implicate Savarkar. When Parchure's wife approached the National Defence Council it refused to take on Parchure's defence saying that his case was indefensible and due to his confessional statement, he had signed his own death warrant. Finally, his wife had to plead with Inamdar, a lawyer from Gwalior. After initial hesitation, he agreed. In a book he wrote after the trial, The Story of The Red Fort Trial, Inamdar has mentioned in detail how he snatched victory from the jaws of defeat for his client. Parchure's acquittal by the high court in the Gandhi murder case was not based on his innocence but on the cunning shenanigans of his lawyer.
Lets Kill Gandhi Page 64