'No witnesses have been produced in court to establish where Apte and Godse stayed in Bombay, between 14th and 17th January. There was only one witness who could have thrown light on this—Wadia, the manager of Sea Green Hotel. Surprisingly, the prosecution did not call him to testify. Badge said in his testimony that Apte and Godse went to Dixit Maharaj's home on the night of the 14th. If Wadia had been produced, he would have testified that they were in the hotel at that time.'
Then Mengle tried to establish his claim that Apte and Godse had gone to Bombay to collect funds and volunteers for their proposed demonstration in Delhi, using excerpts from the testimony of several witnesses to buttress his claim. He rubbished Badge's testimony about Apte and Godse's visit to Savarkar Sadan on the 17th and his claims about what had transpired there, saying that it was vague and contradictory and could not be relied upon.
Continuing his arguments, Mengle said, 'The prosecution has failed to establish through the testimonies of witnesses whether Mahatma Gandhi had delivered post-prayer speeches on 17th, 18th and 19th January 1948. Only Madanlal has said this in his statement. There is a witness to prove that Gandhiji broke his fast on 18 January. It is very likely that during those days, due to weakness, he may not have delivered the post-prayer speeches. Apte has stated that he had gone to Birla House on the evening of the 20th in a private car; he met Badge and Shankar on his way to Birla House and gave them a lift. Apte did not carry out the demonstration because the loud speakers had failed, none of the volunteers had turned up and Nathuram Godse did not come since he had suddenly fallen ill. I want to ask, why did Apte leave? Suddenly there was a bomb explosion. Apte feared that something untoward was about to happen and therefore left.'
Then Mengle touched upon those actions of Apte over which there was no controversy. 'Why did Apte and Godse go to Gwalior? It was because in January the president of the Gwalior Hindu Mahasabha, Dr. Parchure, had staged demonstrations at the Moti Mahal Palace. The accused found it difficult to get volunteers from Bombay and Poona. So they decided to go to Gwalior in the hope of finding volunteers there. If the prosecution dismisses the defence's claim that the accused went to Gwalior to recruit volunteers as ridiculous, the defence too dismisses the prosecution's claim that the accused went to Gwalior to procure a firearm as preposterous.
'How can it be claimed that N. Rav and V Rav are fictitious names? They are abbreviations of Nathuram and Vinayakrav. These are their real names. That the time of their arrival in Gwalior on 27 January was 11.00 or 11.30 pm as claimed by the prosecution is false, as no train reaches Gwalior at that time.' As regards the allegation of procuring a pistol, Mengle alleged that the witnesses from Gwalior were unreliable and biased against the accused. 'Madhukar Kale has not gone to Dr. Parchure's home since May 1947,' he said. On being asked why Apte could not provide any solid evidence to establish where he was, Mengle said, 'Apte was staying at refugee camps on 30th and 31st, but he did not know any of the refugees by name, and so it was not possible to call any of them. But the court should not infer that this meant that Apte was not where he claims to have been or that he was somewhere else.'
Mengle said, 'On 14 February, at the time of his arrest, the local train tickets recovered from Apte, and the evidence about the telegram sent on 31 January from Mumbai to Delhi, are enough to establish the fact that, on those days, 30th and 31 st January, Apte was in Bombay and not Delhi. The prosecution has admitted that the tickets are genuine, and are not stolen; this proves where my client was.'
13 December 1948: Mengle continued with his argument. 'The letter allegedly written on the 30th by Nathuram Godse to Apte on his Poona address, must be scrutinised by a handwriting expert to establish whether it is indeed written by Nathuram. The envelope in which the letter was posted bears the postal stamp of New Delhi dated 30 January, and of Poona dated 2 February. The prosecution claims that it has not been proven that the said letter was mailed in the envelope in question. Our statement, that to ensure that the letter did not fall into the hands of authorities and so was mailed to Apte's office address, has also been disbelieved. This letter proves beyond any doubt that my client, Narayan D. Apte, was not present in Delhi at the time of the murder. The murder of Mahatma Gandhi was the handiwork of Nathuram V. Godse alone. The letter is written in Marathi, it says, "You will all be surprised to get this letter. All the demonstrations before this one have proved to be futile. I am losing control over my emotions. I will be implementing the final solution in a day or two".' At this stage Atmacharan intervened and said, 'If the letter was opened by Apte's brother, you could have summoned him to testify in court. You did not call any such witness. Three witnesses have testified in this court that they saw Apte in Delhi on those days. It is likely that Apte was in Delhi and Godse wrote and sent the letter just to create an alibi for him.' In reply Mengle said, 'It is unfortunate that we could not present any witnesses to substantiate our claims. Even Apte's brother refused to testify. The identification parade in which Sundarilal identified Apte was not conducted in Delhi. Apte and Godse had complained that they had been exposed to the witnesses, and the testimony of Sundarilal is suspect. Badge is a black-marketeer, a liar, scoundrel, and back-stabbing rascal. The prosecution did not call Omprakash and Chopra to testify; if they had, Badge's testimony would have been exposed. The prosecution did not summon Dixit Maharaj's servant to testify either. He was a very important witness. It would have made a great difference in Badge's testimony. The prosecution did not summon Joshi either; they asked his son to testify instead, whose statement is full of hearsay. Nagarvala met Joshi in the Red Fort four or five times, but he was not summoned. If all the evidence is considered to be true, Dixit Maharaj must also be considered a conspirator and so his testimony is worthless. Badge's claim of being taken to Birla House on the morning of the 20th seems to be a figment of his imagination. According to Chamanlal's testimony, the bullet recovered from the jungle is meant for use in a revolver and does not fit a pistol. Meher Singh says that the accused were roaming around in the jungle, Badge says something totally at variance.'
14 December 1948: To prove that there was no conspiracy to murder Gandhi and to prove that Apte was not in Delhi on 30 January Mengle continued his arguments further. He said that the guard in the forest had said nothing about the accused practicing in the jungle in his testimony. 'The prosecution has no witnesses to prove it. Godse and Apte had complained to Magistrate Brown before the identity parade in Bombay that many witnesses had seen them. One of them was Meher Singh. Thus, the identification of the accused by Singh is compromised. Badge should have been made to testify before Singh, but this was not done. Thus the defence was not able to cross-examine him on important points. Also, why was only one guard summoned and not the other three?'
He referred to the alleged meeting between the accused in Marina Hotel, saying how could it be proved that only those that Badge mentioned were present and nobody else. About the distribution of weapons, explosives and bombs and the adoption of aliases by the accused as alleged by Badge, Mengle said that it was a creation of Badge's fertile imagination, as none of the witnesses from Marina Hotel had corroborated that statement.
Thus, concluding his arguments against the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, Mengle said, 'The prosecution's entire case hinges on the testimony of Badge who is a characterless person, a chronic liar and his testimony is worthless.' He then argued about the testimony of the prosecution's witness, referring to the statement of his client Apte. He said, 'The prosecution has relied on the testimonies of Dada Maharaj and Dixit Maharaj to establish that Apte had told the former on 17 January, "You will come to know everything, when we complete our task". On 26 January Apte had demanded that Dada Maharaj must provide them with a revolver. This testimony was given with the intention to show that my client Apte had a vicious mind. But before we decide on the bona fides of the testimony, it is essential to understand the character of Dada Maharaj.' Mengle said that Dada used to distribute weapons amongst the Hind
us to enable them to slaughter Muslims. He wanted Apte to blow up the train in which Jinnah and Liaquat Ali were going to Pakistan. 'Because of his involvement in such illegal enterprises, Dada Maharaj wanted to remain in the good books of the police. In order to save his own skin, wouldn't such a person tell a few lies? If we believe that Apte and Godse possess at least some rudimentary intelligence, is it believable that they would say such a thing to a person like Dada Maharaj at an airport surrounded by so many people?'
Referring to Dixit Maharaj, Mengle said that he too, like his brother, was a trader in illegal arms and his testimony was unreliable.
'Then what did Apte do?' Mengle asked. 'On 17 January, Apte went around collecting funds for the movement in Hyderabad and for the Hindu Rashtra. Only Badge has alleged that Apte had gone to Birla House on the morning of 20 January; and he cannot be relied upon. Apte has confessed that he had gone to Birla House on the evening of the 20th, but only because he wanted to see for himself if he could stage a peaceful demonstration there. The fact that Apte told the taxi driver Surjeet Singh, "Come on quickly start the car, start the car", proves his innocence. The bomb explosion was absolutely unanticipated. It had scared Apte out of his wits.'
Referring to the prosecution's claim that arms had been recovered from the forest behind the Hindu Mahasabha Bhavan based on information provided by Apte, Mengle said that Apte had been totally under the control of the police and did whatever was demanded of him. Moving on to the police finding the matching trousers from the trunk in Apte's possession, Mengle said that the prosecution hadn't presented any witness to substantiate how the trunk came to be with Apte, and that there was no mention of the trunk at the time of his arrest on 14 February.
Ending his arguments, Mengle said, 'The prosecution has failed to substantiate the charges levelled against my client, Narayan D. Apte, beyond reasonable doubt.'
Next, Shankar Kistayya's defence counsel Mehta began his arguments. Mehta said, 'Shankar was Badge's faithful servant. When all the accused used to meet, Shankar was always left out, so it is possible that he may not have known of the said conspiracy. He used to transport weapons, bombs and explosives, but only on the orders of his master. My client does not possess any political thought or subscribe to a political philosophy. The prosecution has failed to establish any reason why Shankar would want to murder Mahatma Gandhi.'
15 December 1948: Mehta continued with his arguments. Judge Atmacharan said, 'In his testimony Badge has said that Shankar was quite obstinate.' Mehta said, 'Shankar has accepted many things but in his cross-examination by the court, he has said that Badge did not tell him anything about the conspiracy, and only instructed him to dispose off the stuff. When Shankar asked him a second time, Badge was so livid he slapped Shankar. If the other statements from Shankar's testimony are to be believed, then his detachment from the conspiracy must also be believed.' Ending his arguments, Mehta said, 'It may be possible that Shankar is guilty, but while considering his guilt it must be kept in mind that Shankar is Badge's servant.'
Nathuram Godse expressed a desire to defend himself, but only on the condition that it would not have any implications on the status of his defence counsel. Atmacharan said that this would be decided by his defence counsel, V.V. Oak.
Nathuram Vinayak Godse did not challenge the murder charge against him, but added that there were many allegations in Badge's testimony which were not established by the testimonies of witnesses as they were baseless lies. 'Badge said that he had met me, Nathuram Godse, at the Hindu Rashtra's office on 10 January, but the prosecution did not summon any employee who was present in office at that time to corroborate this. There are substantiating testimonies to the fact that Badge travelled with Shankar Kistayya on 14 January, from Poona to Bombay. This is the same day on which Apte and I travelled to Bombay. But it has not been said which train the two travelled by. Badge says that he travelled by the same train in which we had travelled, but it is strange then that in his testimony, he does not mention seeing me.'
Referring to the nominations on his life insurance policies on 13th and 14th January, Godse said, 'I cannot fathom what the prosecution wishes to prove. What connection does the nomination of others on my policy have with my involvement in the alleged conspiracy? Is the prosecution trying to say that I nominated their wives with the intention to entice Apte and Gopal to join me in the conspiracy? On the basis of Shanta Modak's testimony, the prosecution has tried to establish that on reaching Bombay, Apte and I had gone to Savarkar Sadan on the evening of 14 January. Shanta Modak did not see us entering, and to establish whether we had gone inside, the prosecution could have summoned a resident, but they did not do so.' Nathuram added, 'The police had been keeping a watch on Savarkar's home for a long time before Gandhiji's murder; how did they not see us going into Savarkar Sadan?'
'In his testimony Badge has said that, on alighting from the train at Dadar, he went to the office of the Hindu Mahasabha, where he learned that Apte and Godse were also expected that evening. Who was the person who informed Badge about our expected arrival? That person could have been summoned to support this part of Badge's testimony. Why was he not summoned?'
Nathuram referred to the diary entries made by him, about paying Rs. 50 to a Bandobhau and Rs. 200 to Gopal Godse. 'The prosecution picked on this reference to a "Bandobhau", and, associating it with the alleged alias adopted by Badge at the Marina Hotel, concluded that I had hatched the conspiracy for some time. Even if it is accepted that the Bandobhau mentioned in my diary is Badge, I would not have written the name of Gopal Godse in the same diary which would result in his getting entangled in the conspiracy. Gopal is much more precious to me than Badge.
'My activities in Bombay on 14th, 15th and 17th January have been referred to, but nothing has been mentioned about what I did in Poona on the 16th. Badge's testimony that I had asked him for a pistol was not substantiated by a witness. I did not go with Apte to Savarkar Sadan on 17 January. The prosecution's claim is entirely dependent on Badge's testimony, and it has not been substantiated. We could have produced witnesses to refute the claims of the prosecution, but following the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, many of our people were arrested. Who can say that, while in custody, the police did not threaten them in all sorts of ways?
'One prosecution witness claimed that three days before the bomb explosion we were at Marina Hotel; but the prosecution says that on that day we were in Delhi. (This is a strange argument as there is a Marina Hotel in Delhi.) None of the witnesses from Marina Hotel has supported Badge's testimony, that on the afternoon of 20 January, we had a meeting in Room 40.I was ill that day, Badge has also mentioned this, and I did not go to Birla House that evening.' Nathuram continued, 'A witness, Govind Malekar said that Apte, Gopal Godse and I met at the Elphinstone Hotel in Bombay at 9 pm on 25 January 1948. Whereas another witness, Vasant Joshi, has claimed that he saw Apte, Gopal Godse, Karkare and me at 9 pm on 25 January 1948 at Thana, twenty-five kilometres away from Bombay. How is this possible? Also why was G.M. Joshi, Vasant Joshi's father, not called to testify? Why was Vasant not asked to identify the accused in the identification parade conducted at Bombay?'
Referring to the testimony of Dada Maharaj, Nathuram said, 'He did illegal things. How can such a person be relied upon? How can one be sure that, to save his skin, and gain some goodwill from the police, he has not lied in court? We did not expect any monetary help from Dada Maharaj; we only wanted to collect a revolver from him, which he had owed us for a long time.'
16 December 1948: Nathuram continued his arguments. He drew attention to the prosecution's claim that Gopal Godse must have clandestinely gone to Frontier Hindu Hotel from Marina Hotel on the afternoon of 20 January, and then returned. 'Even Badge has not mentioned anything about Gopal Godse going anywhere from Marina Hotel in his testimony. Badge has said that he saw Gopal repairing a revolver, and Badge had himself gone into the bathroom to fix fuses and detonators to the hand grenades and explosives. When Badge came out of the bathroom h
e saw Gopal standing there. After that Gopal went to Birla House with all the others. The reasoning that Badge failed to see the movements of Gopal Godse since he was engrossed in his work, is rather far-fetched.' (Nathuram's arguments are baseless since any explosives expert will agree that working with any sort of explosive is extremely hazardous and calls for total concentration; a slight lapse in concentration can prove fatal. According to the description of this event by Manohar Mulgaonkar in his book The Men Who Killed Gandhi, while Badge was preparing the explosives, Apte and Karkare tried to test a fuse wire by igniting it. Clouds of smoke engulfed the room and escaped into the lobby alerting a waiter, who rushed to the room to check if everything was all right. Apte barely managed to convince him that it was just accumulated cigarette smoke. Under these circumstances it is very likely that Badge, who knew the destructive power of the explosives and the volatility of improvised explosive devices, would have been very cautious while handling them and would have been oblivious to everything else.)
'The owner of Frontier Hindu Hotel has claimed in his testimony that he saw Gopal in his hotel at 4 pm on 20 January, and that his name is entered in the guest register. The owner does not remember when Gopal checked into his hotel but conveniently remembers the time when Gopal returned. It must be noted that the distance between Frontier Hindu Hotel and Marina Hotel is five miles. The owner does not say if he saw any car waiting outside the hotel after Gopal arrived. When they charge for even an hour's stay, how is it possible that the owner was not aware of the time when Gopal arrived at his hotel? His testimony is doubtful and somewhat strange.
Lets Kill Gandhi Page 75