Lets Kill Gandhi

by Gandhi, Tushar A.

  Referring to Jain's testimony he said, 'Even Madanlal has accepted that Dr. Jain knew him. It is very possible that, owing to his youth and impulsive nature, Madanlal could have boasted about his exploits in Ahmednagar, the cache of arms collected by them there, and his involvement in a plan to murder Mahatma Gandhi to Dr. Jain. He met Savarkar in connection with his exploits in Ahmednagar, and that Savarkar patted his back in appreciation of this. Dr. Jain is a professor, and a peace-loving person. He has nothing to do with weapons, bombs and explosives. Why would he give a false testimony against Madanlal whom he knew and had affection for?'

  The defence, Daftary said, had tried to raise doubts about Jain's ability to recollect things accurately by pointing out that he did not know the name of the governor of Bombay province and the date on which he had assumed office. This lack of general knowledge was being exploited by the defence to raise doubts about the memory of Dr. Jain. 'The conclusion one draws from the testimony of Dr. Jain, Angad Singh and Morarji Desai is that there was a very well planned conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi, and it was in place before 20 January 1948.'

  Continuing his arguments, Daftary said, 'Apte and Godse continued to stay in various hotels under different fictitious names after 23 January 1948. All of you must understand why they used fictitious names. On 25 January, Apte, Godse, Karkare and Gopal Godse were seen at the residence of Vasant Joshi. Apte stayed at Vasant Joshi's home from 5th to 13th February. The defence has alleged that Joshi testified under pressure from the police. The very simple and lucid manner in which the witness has testified must be kept in mind.

  'Badge brought one revolver and Gopal Godse brought another. Both the revolvers were out of order. Thus a demand was made of Dixit Maharaj to provide a good firearm. If they were successful in procuring a revolver in Bombay, why would they go to Gwalior? It was because they did not get a working firearm in Bombay that they went to Gwalior to acquire a revolver with the help of Dr. Parchure.

  'There are two versions about their arrival in Gwalior. (1) They reached Gwalior at 9.30 pm on 27 January 1948; and (2) They reached Gwalior at dawn on 28 January. But the prosecution witnesses, the two tonga drivers, have stated in their testimony that they ferried the accused at around midnight on 27 January to Dr. Parchure's home.'

  Referring to the confessional statement recorded in the presence of a Gwalior magistrate, Daftary stated, 'Even Dr. Parchure in his confessional statement has stated that Apte and Godse had arrived at his home at 11.30 pm on 27 January 1948, with the intention to procure an efficient revolver.

  'The defence has alleged that the witnesses from Gwalior had all testified under pressure from the police. From among them Kale, Khire and Goel were not even cross-examined by Nathuram's counsel. This shows how baseless their allegation of "testifying under police pressure" really is.' He then mentioned the witnesses at the Delhi Railway Station on 29 January 1948, who had stated that, on the day of Gandhi's murder, Nathuram Godse, Narayan Apte and Vishnu Karkare were present in Delhi. 'Karkare's activities between 30 January and 2 February are not known. But if it is accepted that Karkare travelled by train from Delhi to Bombay, he would have been travelling on those days.'

  7 December 1948: Daftary told the court about the activities of Apte and Karkare from 30 January till their arrest by Bombay police on 14 February 1948. Referring to the coat recovered from Madanlal at the time of his arrest, Daftary said, 'Madanlal has alleged that the coat, which has been made a part of the authentic evidence, is not the one he was wearing at the time of his arrest after the bomb explosion. The trousers that were recovered from the room in which Apte was held indicate that that they were stitched at Dabke & Sons of Poona. Dabke has confirmed the same. But what the police officers have said is very different.

  'Apte claims that he had donated the suit to the refugees staying at the Bombay refugee camp and did not know where the police had got it from. If it was not seized at the time of his arrest from Apollo Hotel, how did the trunk and trousers come into his possession at the office of the CID? It has been established that during his detention there, Apte was allowed to get clothes brought in by his relatives, which were not checked before they were given to him. During investigations it was revealed that the matching trousers for the coat recovered from Madanlal was in the trunk belonging to Apte, so Apte's detention room at the CID office in Bombay was searched and the trousers recovered.

  'Apte's testimony is based on second thoughts. Apte and Madanlal knew each other since much before 20 January. It is very convoluted to believe that Apte knew Madanlal as a refugee and gave him his coat to wear and the trousers remained with Apte. It is also very difficult to believe that the police planted a coat with Madanlal and claimed that they recovered it at the time of his arrest; then planted a matching pair of trousers in a trunk and conveniently "found" it in Apte's room. This is too far-fetched.

  'The defence has not tried to disprove the prosecution's claims and so the prosecution's version must be accepted as the truth.'

  Daftary further stated that every precaution was taken to ensure that the identity of the accused was not revealed at the time they were taken from place to place in the course of investigations, and also when they were shifted from one lock-up to another. 'Apart from one or two persons, the defence has not complained that the accused were exposed to the witnesses before the identification parades. Godse himself declared that when he was detained at the Tughlaq Road Police lockup, a blanket was hung across his door. But Godse complained that taxi driver Surjeet Singh had got an opportunity to see him. The defence counsel did not question the witness Surjeet Singh in this regard.

  'The defence did not ask Lala Kishanchand, the Delhi magistrate, any questions about his arrangements for conducting the identification parades and he clearly stated that no police officer was allowed to be present there.' He then stated that if the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses was accepted as the truth, there would remain no doubt that the incidents of 20th and 30th were both a part of the same plot. Elaborating on the charges against Nathuram Godse, Daftary said, 'Godse has accepted in his statement that he murdered Gandhiji. The law permits no one to murder another. Any argument justifying a murder is meaningless according to law. Godse has repeatedly mentioned the payment of Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan. No significant incident took place between 20th and 30th January due to which Nathuram Godse become enraged and murdered Gandhiji. This is a pre-meditated, planned and voluntary action. It is an inhuman, unjustified and deliberate murder.'

  Daftary referred to the letter written by Nathuram Godse to Apte, in which he claimed that his patience had been pushed beyond the limits of endurance. 'I ask what happened between the 20th and 30th which enraged Nathuram to this extent? The evidence presented by the prosecution with regards to the existence of a conspiracy is also very formidable. Godse has taken pains to show that he was acting on his own to ensure that the other accused would be saved.'

  He appealed to the court to keep in mind the method of questioning by the defence during the cross-examinations and the statement of Nathuram Godse in mind. 'There is no shortage of RSS and Hindu Mahasabha volunteers in Bombay, Poona and Delhi, and so the claim made by Godse that he went to Gwalior to enlist volunteers is absurd!' Daftary claimed that Nathuram Godse's insistence on getting his pulse and heart rate medically examined after the murder was an act of vanity. He referred to the testimony of witnesses who had seen the second accused, Narayan Apte, in Bombay, Delhi and Gwalior. He read out random extracts from Apte's statement and pointed out the glaring discrepancies in it. Daftary rubbished the claim made by Apte that at the time of Gandhi's murder, he was in Bombay not in Delhi, which had been corroborated by the tickets found on his person at the time of his arrest.

  8 December 1948: Daftary referred to Apte's statement, where he stated that the police had shown him certain documents, and asked him whether they had received any help from Britain or Russia to murder Gandhi. He said that the defence had not questioned a single prosec
ution witness during their cross-examination on this aspect.

  It was stated by the accused that on the 31st, Apte made Manorama Salvi send a telegram from Bombay to Delhi. Referring to this Daftary said, 'The defence has not produced the concerned telegram. Secondly, Apte says he was in the telegraph office but got Salvi to send the telegram, which seems to be very strange.' He referred to the statement of Apte where he mentioned that he had consulted some of his lawyer friends on 31 January regarding Nathuram's defence. 'If this is true, why did the defence not call the lawyers as witnesses to establish Apte's innocence? It has been claimed that on the 30th and 31st of January Apte and Karkare had visited their friends in Bombay. Couldn't they find a single friend who could support their claim? Now it is up to the court to decide whether the witnesses produced by the prosecution are sufficient or not. Apte has tried to weave together a story about his being present in Bombay on the said dates and the statements by the defence have failed to establish the fact that the two were in Bombay.

  'The letter written by Godse to Apte is not sufficient to establish the latter's presence in Bombay. Again, no witness has been produced to support or prove the truth of the contents of the letter. The envelope does not bear a postmark dated 30 January either.' Speaking about the testimony of the many witnesses produced by the prosecution about Karkare's role, he said, 'Karkare is an accomplice in the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi. Madanlal has accepted in his statement that he had visited Dr. J.C. Jain with Karkare. Many witnesses of the prosecution have also said that they had seen Karkare with the conspirators. Madanlal has also admitted that he participated in the demonstrations in Delhi and Ahmednagar. It is hard to believe that Madanlal exploded the bomb to draw Gandhi's attention towards the hardships of the refugees. He could have stood up and shouted his grievances in the prayer meeting and Gandhiji would have definitely listened to him. Shankar has accepted that he was with Badge. He went to Birla House with the other accused on 20 January. This corroborates Badge's testimony. But Shankar has denied that he was aware of their intentions. He has not accepted Badge's testimony that he had informed Shankar about the plan while they were leaving their room in Marina Hotel to go to Birla House. And it is impossible to believe that, even after he had handled explosives in the hotel, he was unaware of what they were going to be used for. The explosives were not given to him because he was Badge's servant but because he was one of the conspirators. Thus Shankar was well and truly aware of what they were going to do at Birla House.'

  Speaking about the evidence gathered against Gopal Godse by the prosecution, Daftary said, 'The testimonies of the witnesses have proved that Gopal Godse was also a conspirator. If it is to be believed that he spent the entire period of his leave in his village, the defence could have very easily produced witnesses from the village to support the statement, but this was not done.' Speaking about the testimonies against Savarkar, Daftary said, 'Savarkar was introduced to Badge in 1944-45. The former was anti Muslims, was the president of the Hindu Mahasabha, and had also presided over the Hindu Conference. A witness has testified that Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte had gone to Savarkar's home by car on the evening of 14 January. Badge has also alluded to this in his testimony. According to his testimony, Savarkar had entrusted the task of murdering Gandhiji to Apte and Godse. This shows that he had also participated in the conspiracy. The charges against Savarkar are based on facts and the provisions of the law.'

  Next, Daftary read out extracts of the testimony of various witnesses where many things were said about Parchure and his political beliefs. He mentioned that there was a witness to prove that Godse and Apte had stayed at Parchure's home and had bought a pistol while there. Referring to Parchure's confessional statement he said, 'The statement is an acceptance of his crime. If the court is satisfied that the statement is legal and valid then it is sufficient to say that it has not been taken under duress.' Daftary read out parts of Atal's testimony wherein it was stated that all legal procedures and formalities were adhered to before it was recorded. 'That Parchure had been subjected to harassment and pressure by the police while in custody is hard to believe. If it were true, why did the defence counsels not question the witnesses from Gwalior in this regard? If Parchure was ill, he would have been medically treated, and this would have been recorded in the register at the fort. The defence could have produced the register to support their contention. Why wasn't this done? This is an acceptance that Parchure committed a crime and he helped Apte and Godse to murder Mahatma Gandhi,' Daftary said.

  In the end he referred to the argument put forth by the defence that as Parchure was a citizen of the princely state of Gwalior, the special court was not eligible to try him. He said, 'Dr. Parchure is the son of S.G. Parchure, a resident of Poona. Thus, he is a citizen of British India. In order to confirm Dr. Parchure's citizenship, it is essential to establish the place of birth of his father.' Daftary cited some high court rulings in this regard.

  9 December 1948: 'Dr. Parchure can be tried by those very laws, which would be the same for any Indian citizen. Until he becomes a permanent resident and acquires other rights as a citizen, he remains an Indian citizen. His father was a citizen of British India due to his birth and education in Poona. According to the British law, a person born in British territory becomes a British citizen. The male offspring of such a person also becomes a British citizen. Thus any citizen of British India, even if he or she starts living in the princely states, remains a citizen of British India. On the formation of a new dominion, the meaning of India becomes the dominion of India, which comprises British India and the princely states. Even if we accept that Dr. Parchure is a citizen of the Gwalior state, he still remains a citizen of India because the princely state of Gwalior has joined the Indian dominion.' To corroborate his statement he referred to various documents and letters, which were accepted in the court's records as authentic evidence.

  Daftary also cited excerpts from S.G. Parchure's biography. 'The biography and the testimony of Maj. Jal, and from what is mentioned in various documents, establishes certain facts about S.G. Parchure. Even though the author is dead, the court can accept it as authentic evidence, as it gives the correct birth place and date.' Referring to a charge of transporting weapons illegally from Bombay to Delhi, Daftary said, 'Witnesses have testified in court that they saw the accused carrying weapons, bombs and explosives. Although the prosecution could have fielded many more witnesses to prove this charge we did not since all the other witnesses would have merely repeated what the witnesses have already said, under oath, in court. The prosecution thinks that it has successfully proven all the charges levelled against the accused. It can be asked of the prosecution as to why Dada Maharaj and Dixit Maharaj were also not named as accused. It was because they had not participated in the crime directly, and thus have been let off.' He cited some high court rulings to support his statement.

  Finally, concluding his eight-day summation, Daftary said, 'Looking at the case from any perspective and keeping in mind the fact that the prosecution has produced irrefutable evidence and credible witnesses, the court must accept that the prosecution has proven the guilt of all the accused. All charges against them have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court must declare the accused guilty as charged, my Lord.'

  10 December 1948: Arguments by the defence began with Apte's counsel, Mengle.

  'I hope to safely take the defence's ship to harbour, by navigating the minefield laid by the prosecution. It must be remembered that the defence has only called on 149 witnesses from the 250 originally listed in the chargesheet.

  'In a criminal matter, the onus of proving a charge rests on the prosecution. The prosecution has alleged that the statements of the accused have been fortified by adding several after-thoughts, in an effort to strengthen their defence. It has also been asked why the defence failed to call upon any witnesses to strengthen their arguments. Even if for a minute we accept all the charges levelled against the accused by the prosecution as co
rrect, the prosecution has to prove all the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and provide witnesses. In a criminal trial the defence does not have to prove anything. In case, due to special circumstances, an accused is unable to be present during cross-examination, does this become enough grounds to brand him guilty? The statements of the accused and the cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses by the defence are more than sufficient to prove the latter's contentions. I will prove by my arguments that what my client has stated is true.' He referred to the letter found from Savarkar's home and the setting-up of the Rifle Training Club in Ahmednagar in 1938 by Apte. Mavlankar and N.V. Gadgil had praised Apte for doing this. He said his client was an assistant technical recruiting officer during the Second World War. In 1944, he became the manager of Agranee, a periodical promoting the ideology of the Hindu Mahasabha, with Nathuram Godse as its editor. He agreed that Apte had led a protest against Gandhi at Panchgani and had attempted to disrupt his prayer meetings.

  Talking about the general situation of the nation during 1947-48, Mengle said, 'A painful division of the country took place. The Hindus and Sikhs trapped in Pakistan had to face untold miseries, Kashmir was attacked and an invasion was attempted. The Government of India initially refused to give Pakistan Rs. 55 crores because they feared that Pakistan would use it to fund the invasion of Kashmir. But they had to give in because Gandhi went on a fast. Apte was in Poona at that time. He felt that this action was unforgivable and so he decided to register his anger by holding a peaceful demonstration against Gandhiji's bullying tactics, by disrupting his prayer meeting in Delhi.' Mengle requested the court to keep two things in mind from the legal point of view: (1) the division of India; and (2) the persecution of Hindus in Pakistan.

  He drew the court's attention to the testimony of those prosecution witnesses who had referred to Gandhi's fast and to the news published in the newspapers at that time. 'The payment of the money to Pakistan prompted Apte to hold a demonstration in Delhi. He went to Bombay on 14 January, with Nathuram Godse, with the objective of collecting money and volunteers for the proposed demonstration.