Lets Kill Gandhi

by Gandhi, Tushar A.

  28 September 1948: Haldipur continued his testimony by saying that he had taken handwriting samples of the accused adding that he would read out or explain the contents of the panchanama before getting them to sign it. Orders were issued for the investigation of this case on 28 January 1948. 'When I say "this case" I mean the bomb explosion and then the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. (Realising his mistake, the witness immediately explained. On 28 January 1948, I was ordered to assist in the investigations of the Bomb Explosion Case and on 31 January 1948 I was ordered to assist in the investigations of the murder case.) I had come to Delhi on 5 April 1948 or thereabouts, in connection with this case. I cannot say accurately on which date the accused were brought to the CID office. I seem to recollect that the accused were finally brought to Delhi in the third week of May.'

  29 September 1948: Haldipur's cross-examination continued. 'I had taken the accused to the court of the chief presidency magistrate of Bombay to get them remanded to police custody, but the remand application was submitted by my senior officer. I did not inquire as to when the accused had been chargesheeted in the case. I have not seen the FIR of this case either nor have I gone to Poona in connection with this case. As far as I know Umar Khan used to assist Nagarvala in the investigation of this case.

  Next, the prosecution was to call a witness whose testimony would prove that Savarkar had ties with the other accused. The defence counsels questioned the credentials of the witness and raised objections. Daftary argued that the testimony was valid under Section 11 of the Indian Witness Act, and the witness was being called to demolish Savarkar's statement wherein he had stated that he had no relations with the accused. The statement is a part of the authenticated record of the court. Bhopatkar said that the circum-stances under which the statement was made must also be taken into consideration.

  Before this, Daftary submitted three applications. In the first application he requested the court to show Karkare's counsel, Dange some letters and goods seized from Karkare. In the second, he denied that the collector of Poona, S.G. Barve, had taken any goods or letters from Apte's home. Everything seized from the search at Apte's home had been submitted in the court. Two letters seized from two 'other places' were in the possession of the police and could be shown to the defence counsels. The third application requested that Deulkar's statement, where he stated that Parchure had voluntarily expressed the desire to make a confessional statement and had not complained about any harassment or ill treatment, be accepted by the court, as it had earlier disallowed this part of his testimony.

  Bhopatkar submitted an application in which a clarification had been made about Savarkar's statement wherein he had claimed that 'I have never had contact in any form, with any of the accused'. Bhopatkar explained that Savarkar had a longstanding relationship with Godse, Apte, Parchure and Badge due to their work with the Hindu Mahasabha, but it did not imply that he had entered into a conspiracy with the accused to murder Gandhi. After their arrest, when the police had taken a group photograph of all the accused, Savarkar had objected to being made a part of it. Daftary insisted that to establish to what extent Savarkar had contacts with the other accused would be revealed when the letters seized from Savarkar's home were examined by the court.

  30 September 1948: Next on the witness stand was CID Inspector A.R. Pradhan of Poona Police. Ruling on the plea of Savarkar's counsel, Bhopatkar, regarding his objection to the correspondence between Savarkar and some of the accused being recognised as authentic evidence by the court, Judge Atmacharan ruled that the twenty-nine letters believed to have been written by Apte and Godse to Savarkar were relevant upto a certain extent and could be treated as authentic evidence. The witness told the court that DIG of Bombay Province, Rana, had ordered him to assist Nagarvala in the investigation of this case. On 21 February 1948 he was ordered to read the contents of the files seized from Savarkar's residence. He said that after reading many files he realised that Nathuram and Apte had written many letters jointly or independently, and Savarkar had replied to them likewise. Seventeen letters written by Nathuram were accepted by the court as prime evidence. When Pradhan went to Poona and Ahmednagar no senior police officer had accompanied him. He had gone to Ahmednagar to bring back some secret files. Apart from those by the accused, there were letters written by others to Savarkar in these files and Pradhan added that there were nearly 10,000 letters in those files.

  Mengle selected seven letters and submitted these to the court as prime evidence. Bannerjee informed the court that the letter written by Gandhi to Savarkar on his sixty-first birthday was also in the file. Godse had written a letter to Savarkar in October 1946, his last letter, which was also in the file. Bhopatkar selected six letters written by Savarkar to Nathuram and requested the court to admit these as prime evidence. The statement issued by Savarkar in 1942 on the arrest of the CWC and the condolence letter he had written to Gandhi on the death of Kasturba were also included.

  The CID's sub-inspector C.R. Pradhan now gave his testimony. He had been ordered by Nagarvala to keep a watch on Savarkar's home in Shivaji Park and some other establishments, and also ordered to arrest Karkare. He went to Poona on 8 February with Gopal Godse and Badge to locate the addresses of Godbole and G.P. Kale. While searching the premises of the Maruti Mandir they had found some explosive substances. He testified that on 23 May 1948, Badge's wife had come to meet him at the CID office in Bombay. Before allowing her to go near Badge, she was asked if she had brought anything along with her. She said she had brought a letter. They later found that the letter was torn into eight pieces, which Pradhan himself stuck together. Pradhan claimed he had arrested Shankar Kistayya from Bhuleshwar on 6 February 1948.*

  A layout plan of the Mahabavdi Police Station had been drawn for evacuation in case of an air attack. This was submitted to the court to indicate where Shankar was arrested. On being questioned the witness said, 'I have not drawn the map. The map is accurate, but I have not measured it with a scale. I know this area very well. I have never moved around in this area with the map. I don't even know who has drawn the map. On 25 February when Apte and Karkare were brought to Bombay, their faces were not covered in the plane. In Delhi they were transported in a military lorry, which was covered on all sides by a canvas. In Bombay they were transported in a military ambulance which too, was covered from all sides. On 20 January 1948 Nagarvala had ordered me, in Delhi, to arrest Karkare.'*

  The next witness to testify was CID Inspector Mandlik of Gwalior. He narrated to the Court how he had heard from a Tongawala that he had ferried two men wanting to go to Parchure's home on the night of 27 January. Then Mandlik described the various police procedures carried out by him in Gwalior.

  Next witness was an explosives Inspector from Bombay S.K Bhavnagri. He informed the court about the various explosive materials which his office had received and had sent for analyses to various laboratories. He also described to the court the accident in which Sub-Inspector Y.S. Paranjape was grievously injured.

  NAGARVALA'S TESTIMONY

  The 132nd witness in the trial was its chief investigating officer, Deputy Commissioner of Bombay CID Jamshed D. Nagarvala. Taking the stand, he said, 'I joined the Indian Police Service on 2 February 1937. I received my police training from the Nasik Central Police Training School. I was posted in Sindh for three years in connection with the suppression of the 'Hoor Uprising', clashes between the police and the hoors. I have exploded hand grenades on many occasions.'

  HOW THE POLICE UNCOVERED THE CONSPIRACY

  Nagarvala said that along with his duties in Bombay he had additionally been appointed a special police superintendent in Delhi also. He was to investigate the bomb explosion case and the Gandhi murder case.

  He was asked to meet Morarji Desai at Bombay Central Station before the departure of the Madras Mail* Nagarvala then went on to give details narrated in an earlier chapter. He immediately ordered a very strict watch on Savarkar's home from 9.30 pm that very day and ordered Karkare's arrest. He said
he had inquired if the Ahmednagar police had arrested Karkare.** 'The Deputy Superintendent of Delhi Police Sardar Jaswant Singh and another inspector had come to Bombay to meet me, on 22 January 1948. They wished to arrest Karkare and his accomplices. They stayed till the afternoon of 23 January. During the interim period they kept looking for Karkare and his accomplices. Before this the Bombay police was not aware of Karkare's antecedents.†

  He went on to say that Rana had come to Bombay on 27 January 1948 and he had been briefed about the situation and the ongoing investigation. He said on the 30th the Home minister of Bombay province informed him that Gandhi had been murdered. 'On the morning of 31 January 1948, the police commissioner of Bombay informed me that Savarkar had asked for help, and he immediately ordered me to proceed with a posse to Savarkar's home. Savarkar walked out of his room and met me as I entered his second floor residence. I was surprised when he came forward and said, "So you have come to arrest me for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi." He sounded very guilty; I also felt that he was only pretending to be ill. I told him that I had only come to conduct a search of his home. Savarkar definitely looked very crestfallen and also fearful,' said Nagarvala, and went on to give details about speaking to the taxi driver Kotian and Shanta Bhaskar Modak.

  APTE ARRESTED

  Nagarvala added that Apte and Karkare were arrested from Pyrke's Apollo Hotel after secretly tapping the telephone line of Manorama Salvi's father and listening in to the conversation between Apte and Manorama. He then said that all, barring Savarkar and Parchure, were brought to Delhi on 24 May 1948. In accordance with Section 4 of the Prisoner Identification Act, a group photograph of all the accused was taken.

  6 October 1948: Nagarvala's testimony continued. 'I sent a police party to Poona to search Apte's home to look for a pair of missing trousers, but it was not found. On getting information, I called three panchas and in their presence we searched the room where Apte was held. Apte opened his trunk and handed over the trousers to me. A recovery statement was prepared, which I signed.' (This was a ridiculous claim by Nagarvala as it is very difficult to believe that an accused in police custody managed to keep a locked trunk with him and that the police did not know about the trunk or its content till many days later, whereas at the time of his arrest even train tickets were recovered from his person and made note of. The court refused to believe this far-fetched claim, since Apte had claimed that he had donated the jacket, recovered from Madanlal, for the refugees at the Chembur refugee camp and that is where it must have come in possession of Madanlal. The police had recovered Apte's coat from Madanlal at the time of his arrest; if they could prove that the matching trousers were recovered from Apte then a connection between Apte and Madanlal would be established. But the pathetic attempt made by Nagarvala was rejected outright by the court. Of course there was more evidence that linked both Madanlal and Apte to the bomb explosion case and the subsequent murder case and so this lapse did not cause much damage. But it did allow the Defence to discredit the police and raise doubts about their integrity which enabled them to eventually get Savarkar acquitted.)

  Nagarvala continued, 'I had only recorded Miss Modak's testimony in my room. When I received orders to investigate this case, I had, for my convenience, got the entire second floor of the new building of the CID office in Bombay vacated. A sentry was posted at the entrance to the elevator on the ground floor. I had warned the liftman not to bring any one to the upper floor without my orders. I used to meet very few persons in my room. The windows and doors of the rooms in which the accused were held were kept shut and locked. The doors of the rooms in which Gopal Godse and Narayan Apte were held were open but we had hung curtains across these. I know Suryadeo Sharma, G.S. Dandavate and G. Jadhav. I had taken an allowance of Rs. 3,000 to search for them. I had given orders to many police officers all over the country. We had found Joginder Singh Chopra once, but he has vanished since then. He has not been found yet. I had sent seized documents and the handwriting specimen of the accused for analysis to the handwriting expert.'

  Nagarvala said that during the investigation, he had sufficiently satisfied himself that the telegram sent in Apte's name was neither sent by him nor was it in his writing. Manorama Salvi could have testified with regard to the telegram, but she turned hostile and corresponded with the defence counsel. Nagarvala added that he was aware that an advocate Jamnadas Mehta and Vyas had also been detained and had no knowledge about others. After Gandhi's murder, a man named Yatte, member of the Anti Pakistan League' sought sanctuary in the police station, claiming that a violent mob was intending to lynch him. They all subscribed to the Mahasabha RSS ideology.

  8 October 1948: Nagarvala said that Morarji Desai hadn't informed him about the letter Karkare had written to him concerning refugees.

  'I am not sure if an application seeking Madanlal's remand was signed by me or by one of my subordinate officers on my orders. I did not ask Morarji Desai about the source of his information. Before this, in the course of the investigation, I did not seek any permission to transport the accused from one location to the other. I suspended Lance Naik Kadam because he had smuggled a letter written by Apte to Manorama Salvi out of the prison. The police commissioner had issued standing orders that multiple handwriting specimens of the accused must be taken so that the handwriting expert had enough material to compare and arrive at an accurate analysis.' This completed Nagarvala's testimony and the court was adjourned till 18 October 1948 because of Vijaya Dashmi and Bakr Eid.

  18 and 20 October 1948: The proceedings of the court resumed on 18 October, after a nine-day vacation. However, after a short while, it was adjourned again as Atmacharan had to leave for Kanpur on some personal work.

  21 October 1948: The chief handwriting expert, Gajjar, of the Poona Provincial CID unit was called. He said he had received orders on 17 March 1948 to analyse some documents related to the Gandhi murder case. Haldipur gave him some contentious documents and was told to stay in Bombay for the duration of the investigation. It must be remembered that the documents were in English and Marathi. On many occasions, the accused were asked to write on clean sheets of paper, what Haldipur dictated to them. The procedure had been confirmed in the testimony of many witnesses presented in court by the prosecution in this regard. All these documents and papers were handed over to Gajjar for analysis and investigations. Before Gajjar's testimony began, Madanlal's counsel submitted an application to the court, which said that while his client was in custody he was made to provide handwriting specimens on five occasions. This was not admissible as evidence until such time as some specific references were made to it in Gajjar's testimony.

  Gajjar informed the court, 'The handwriting specimen of the accused was sent to me. The handwriting of an entry in the traveller's register, made on 21 January 1948 at Kanpur railway station, matched exactly with Nathuram's writing. So did the writing of the entry made in the Guest Register of Elphinstone Annexe Hotel, Bombay on 24 January 1948.

  25 October 1948: Gajjar continued to say, 'The entries in the guest register of Sea Green Hotel on 2 February 1948, were done by Karkare; so were those by G.M. Joshi in the register of the Frontier Hindu Hotel on 20 January 1948 and by B.M. Vyas in the guest register of Sharief Hindu Hotel on 17 January 1948; these were all examined minutely by me. I observed that the method of holding the pen, the characteristics of strokes, nib angles and the formation of letters were all exactly like those found in the handwriting specimen provided by Vishnu Karkare. The two insurance policies of the Oriental Government Security Life Insurance bear Nathuram's signature.* The signature appearing in the box marked as witness is definitely that of Narayan Apte.'

  Replying to a question from Oak, Gajjar said, 'While analysing Nathuram's writing I came across a recurring characteristic. When he writes "I" the vertical stroke was always tilted, never straight. Of course, there were slight variations which is natural. The "I" in Nathuram's writing is very distinctive.'

  27 October 1948: Replying to a questio
n asked by Gopal Godse's counsel, Inamdar, Gajjar said, 'I have compared the handwritings in the documents in question with the handwriting specimen of the accused obtained by the police. I gave my opinion after thoroughly analysing and satisfying myself about my inferences. The police had taken the handwriting specimen of Badge in the Devanagri script. I used to note down all the differences I observed in the documents in question and the authentic handwriting specimen obtained by the police, but there were very few differences.'

  TESTIMONY OF CID INSPECTOR PINTO

  CID Inspector of Bombay Police Charles Anthony Pinto was called to testify next. He said he was associated with the special branch of the Bombay CID since 29 January 1948. His first task was to trace both Badge and Karkare. He arrested Gopal Godse on 5 February but did not find any incriminating evidence on him. A day after Apte and Karkare were handed over to the authorities of the district jail, they were taken to many places in Delhi and New Delhi along with First Class Magistrate Kishenchandra, which was being done in connection with their recorded statements. All precautions were taken to keep their identities a secret.

  28 October 1948: Pinto said that when he brought Nathuram to Delhi on 5 April 1948, Apte and Karkare were not with him. He assisted Nagarvala in investigating this case and had no recollection of when the police learnt of Karkare's name and address. He denied knowing or ever questioning Paranjape.

  29 October 1948: Witness No. 139 in the Gandhi murder trial was a seventy-eight-year-old retired major from Gwalior, Dadabhai Manekjee. He said, 'I went to Gwalior in 1895, and enrolled in the Gwalior Army that very year. I also served on the personal staff of the late king of Gwalior. I have known Sadashiv Gopal Godse.* I used to call him 'Master Saheb'. I met him for the first time at Ujjain station in 1895. He was either a lecturer or professor in the Mahadev College of Ujjain. After 1906, I used to spend three to four hours in the Rajprasad, the king's palace, daily. S.G. Parchure had five sons and one daughter. I had visited his home in Poona too. He used to dress up in the fashion of the Poona Brahmins. I remember that after serving in many positions he ended his career as the deputy inspector-general in the Education department. I had met him on the day he died. I cannot recall the exact date of his death and don't know if he owned a home or any estates in Gwalior, but I remember that he had requested for a loan from the late monarch to purchase a house. I have neither met nor spoken to Parchure, the accused. I was brought to Delhi by a police officer from Gwalior, S.R. Mandlik.'