'I am surprised the prosecution summoned this witness, whose testimony is at variance with that of the prosecution's star witness Badge. I think it only shows that the prosecution is desperate to prove Gopal Godse's presence in Delhi on the 20th to establish their conspiracy theory. Another witness Godbole has said that, eight to ten days prior to the murder of Gandhiji, Gopal gave him a revolver and some bullets to hide in Poona. If we accept that he meant ten days, it proves that Gopal was not present in Delhi on 20 January. If he meant eight or nine days, and if we believe the prosecution's claim that Gopal was present in Delhi on 20 January, the question arises as to how Gopal managed to reach Poona from Delhi, that too travelling by train, in such a short time. The prosecution has not claimed that Gopal could have travelled by plane. If the testimonies of all these witnesses are read together, you will find that they are contradictory and do not prove the charges levelled against us.'
Nathuram accepted that he had travelled to Delhi by plane from Bombay, along with Apte, on 27 January. 'The prosecution claims that we reached Gwalior on the same day at 11 pm, but the tongawala claims that we reached Gwalior by the Bombay Express. None of the trains going to Bombay reach Gwalior at that time. Apart from this, it is unlikely that the tongawala remembered that we had sat in his tonga that night.' (This argument of Nathuram also does not hold since, in those days, long distance trains were known for not running according to schedule. As far as the memory of the tongawala is concerned, considering the fact that his reins snapped on the way and he lost his passengers to another tonga, the incident must have remained with the man.)
'The prosecution has claimed that Dr. Parchure, in his confessional statement, said that he did not get along with me; yet it has been claimed that I asked Dr. Parchure to provide us with a pistol to murder Mahatma Gandhi. The defence's contention that Apte and I had gone to Gwalior to recruit volunteers for the planned protest demonstration in Delhi has been ridiculed by the prosecution. But if this is ridiculous, then my asking Dr. Parchure to provide a pistol to murder Mahatma Gandhi, despite the fact that he was unfriendly to me, sounds even more ridiculous.'
Then Nathuram referred to the testimonies of Sundarilal and Harikrishna. 'Their statements are mutually contradictory and thus have no significance, Sundarilal claims that on 30 January he asked us to vacate the retiring room at the Delhi Railway Station, but the attendant, Harikrishna, in his testimony, did not even mention Sundarilal. Apart from this, Harikrishna could have easily identified Apte, Karkare and me, but he failed to correctly identify both Apte and Karkare in the identification parade as well as in court.'
Explaining the reason why the defence was not able to produce witnesses, Nathuram said, 'This is the first trial in which the government and the people are on one side and the accused are on the opposite. Although Bhagat Singh's actions were violent, the Congress had complimented him and supported his actions by passing a resolution during the Karachi Session.'
Nathuram concluded his arguments with the oft repeated litany of having performed a deed to save the motherland and Hindu dharma. 'Looking at the situation which developed after the vivisection of Mother India, and the vacillating attitude of the Government of India which capitulated under pressure from Gandhiji, after deciding to withhold payment of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan; under these circumstances although in the eyes of the law I am a criminal, but the Indian people, the future generations and honest historians of the future will agree that it was necessary to kill Gandhiji.
'Since I showed no mercy towards the person I murdered, I have forfeited the right to seek mercy. I have achieved my objectives by murdering Gandhiji so I have nothing further to say. A time will come when the world will ridicule patriotism much in the same manner as they ridicule religious pride today.'
Having grandly declared, in his concluding remarks, that he did not intend to beg for mercy, the self-proclaimed martyr did exactly this after his sentencing, right up to the highest authority, the Privy Council.
ARGUMENTS BY KARKARE'S COUNSEL
Next, Karkare's defence counsel, Dange began his arguments. He said, 'The testimony of only forty-six prosecution witnesses concern my client Karkare. Out of these, twenty-six testimonies are totally irrelevant. The prosecution did not summon any Muslim citizen of the Indian Union, as a witness. Badge is not a very important witness. From those who testified in court only five witnesses are important to the case. The testimonies of the witnesses from Marina Hotel have no bearing on the charges framed against my client Karkare.
'The onus of proving the guilt of the accused is entirely on the prosecution. The court cannot base its decision on inferences and estimation. There is no compulsion for the defence to produce witnesses. The criminal justice system is based on the principle that even if ten guilty persons escape punishment even one innocent person must not be punished.' Then Dange read out excerpts from Karkare's statement, which threw light on his childhood and education.
17 December 1948: Dange referred to the relationship between Dr. J.C. Jain and Madanlal; he referred to Madanlal having introduced Karkare as 'Ahmednagar ka Seth', 'businessman from Ahmednagar'. Dange referred to the letters written by Madanlal to Jain where the former had referred to Karakre as Karkare 'Saheb' not 'Seth'.
'The prosecution has attempted to portray Karkare as a rich businessman by referring to him as "Seth", but it is not necessary that only the rich do social work. A person only needs to be honest and influential to do social work. Thus it is wrong for the prosecution to refer to Karkare as "Seth". The Muslim residents of Ahmednagar suffered losses due to the influx of refugees into Ahmednagar, at the same time Karkare's popularity soared. The Muslims resented this and they complained to the government that Karkare was inciting the refugees to riot. Acting on the complaints of Muslims the government ordered the arrest of Karkare. This was the reason which forced Karkare to use the alias "Vyas".'
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE STATEMENT OF SARDAR PATEL
Before this, Inamdar, defence counsel for Parchure and Gopal, had drawn the attention of the court to a newspaper report which stated that while speaking at the Congress convention in Raipur, the Union Home minister, Patel had said that the pistol used to murder Gandhi had been purchased in Gwalior. Inamdar said, 'Till such time as the trial was in progress, such statements should not be made in public.'
Dange said, 'If Karkare and Madanlal had come to Delhi as a part of a conspiracy, why would they allow a stranger, Amchekar, to be with them? Apart from this, one witness testified that Madanlal went to a meeting on 20 January, Jayprakash Narayan had delivered a speech at that meeting. It has been said that Madanlal shouted slogans and tried to disrupt the meeting. Would a conspirator behave in such a manner? Thus the allegation by the prosecution that the accused had gathered in Delhi in connection with a conspiracy is a blatant lie.' Dange then took up the testimonies of the witnesses from Marina Hotel. 'One witness had identified Karkare in the identification parade conducted at Bombay. It is strange, a person who serves tea to hundreds of people everyday, remembered the face of one person he had served and recognised him after such a long gap amidst so many persons. Another witness from Marina Hotel has referred to the presence of Apte, Nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse in the hotel but has not mentioned Karkare. According to his statement Karkare was in Bombay then. Thus that testimony is contradictory to that of Badge's.'
Dange added, 'The testimonies of the two witnesses from Birla House, Choturam and Bhure Sinh are also mutually contradictory. Choturam said that Karkare approached him for permission to take Gandhiji's photograph, he identified Apte and Karkare during the identification parade but did not say who from the two had approached him with the request to take the photograph.'
Bhur Sinh claimed that two persons had come on 20 January, one of them had asked for permission to be allowed to take a photograph. But he was not able to say which one had asked for permission. Dange added, 'The prosecution has claimed that Nathuram Godse, Narayan Apte and my client Vishnu Karkare were
present in Delhi on 30 January 1948, the day Mahatma Gandhi was murdered. The ticket vendor Sundarilal, working at the Delhi station recognised Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte, he has said that they were present at the Delhi station on 29 January and recognised Karkare as the person who was seen with Nathuram and Apte in the retiring room of Delhi station on 30 January. The identification of the accused by Sundarilal is doubtful. Why was he not asked to participate in the identification carried out on 8 February at Delhi? Making him wait till the one in Delhi means the prosecution was tutoring him. Sundarilal had said that he had seen Apte and Nathuram sitting while Karkare was standing. But why should Karkare be standing? He was not their servant, neither was he inferior to them. The prosecution has not been able to establish how Karkare reached Delhi, thus the benefit of doubt must be with my client, Vishnu Ramchandra Karkare.
'Badge's testimony is unreliable, unless substantiated by supportive witnesses the testimony of an approver cannot be relied on.'
18 December 1948: Continuing his arguments Dange referred to the letter recovered by the police from Badge's wife at the office of the Bombay CID.
'When Badge's wife came to the CID office, she handed over the letter when the policemen asked her for it. It is difficult to understand why Mrs. Badge brought that particular letter when Badge had not asked her to bring anything; this entire episode is very suspicious.'*
Dange said that this letter was not even written on Badge's letterhead. (Why would Karkare write a letter to Badge on Badge's letterhead?) 'The letter paper was torn and had been pasted together. The police had matched the handwriting with that of Karkare. The accused were forced to write in a particular manner. The handwriting expert has claimed that the handwriting of the letter and the specimen provided for comparision were of the same person, in this case Karkare. But a specimen taken under duress or by cajoling can not be used as aunthentic evidence.'
Dange said, 'In the letter references to books and articles was a coded reference to iron jackets and not to weapons and explosives. Karkare had bought an iron jacket before leaving for relief work in Noakhali. There was no conspiracy in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. Badge had come to Delhi to sell his weapons. Apte had requested him to join him in a peaceful demonstration, and so he decided to kill two birds with one stone.
'The prosecution has alleged that it was decided at Marina Hotel that when Madanlal exploded the gun cotton bomb, Karkare, Gopal Godse and Shankar would attack Gandhiji with hand grenades from Choturam's room. But Badge made changes in the plan. Karkare did not know about this. If Karkare was a part of the conspiracy he should have known this. This proves that Karkare is innocent of all charges levelled against him and that there was no conspiracy.'*
'Morarji Desai, Dr. J.C. Jain and Angad Singh's testimonies contain mutually contradictory statements and at many places digress from their original statements and so their testimonies must be expunged from the record of the trial.
'At the time of Karkare's arrest suburban railway tickets of 31 January were recovered from his person. This proves that my client Vishnu Ramchandra Karkare was present in Bombay on the day of Gandhiji's murder and not in Delhi.'
Dange criticised the identification parade in Bombay, saying, 'No Marathi translator was arranged who could explain the proceedings to Karkare, when the chief presidency magistrate organised an identification parade in Bombay.'
In the end he said, 'My client has committed no crime, he must be given the benefit of the doubt and immediately released.'
DAS ARGUES ON BEHALF OF SAVARKAR
Next, P.R. Das began arguments in defence of V.D. Savarkar. He said, 'There are two things we must think about. First, whether there was any conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi. Second, if there was a conspiracy, to what extent was Savarkar involved? According to the statements of the prosecution the final decision to murder Mahatma Gandhi was taken in Room 40 of Marina Hotel on the afternoon of 20 January 1948. The defence has said that there was no conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi, and if it is alleged that there was one, it would be such a sad conclusion because the other accused had only planned to stage a peaceful demonstration during the prayer meeting. The event of 30 January was an individual action of Nathuram Godse. If there was a conspiracy why was Gandhiji not murdered on 20 January itself? That day, seven persons were well equipped with arms and explosives to carry out the deed. The testimonies presented by the prosecution in this regard do not corroborate the testimony of the approver Badge; in fact at many places, they demolish his claims. The prosecution has also presented testimonies which claim that the accused met after the failed attempt on 20 January and reiterated their resolve to murder Mahatma Gandhi.'
Das cited decisions of the Council of Lords and the Allahabad high court and claimed that many doubts remained in the case conducted by the prosecution. It was for the prosecution to conduct the trial in a manner free of any doubts or suspicions. He continued, 'Is the prosecution right or the defence. On 20 January only one bomb exploded. Does this mean that the prosecution has proved its point beyond reasonable doubt? Does the prosecution have any concrete evidence why the accused did not implement the conspiracy on the 20th itself?
He continued to say, 'Badge's testimony may not have been substantiated in its entirety but the main points have been. Now, it is up to the court to decide.
'Badge has admitted that he has been selling weapons, bombs and explosives to Apte and Karkare. These transactions were not in connection with the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, but to collect arms for the protection of the Hindus staying in the Nizam's Hyderabad state.
'In November 1947, Apte asked Badge if the arms were ready. He also informed Badge that Karkare would come in a day or two to pick up the stockpile. These weapons were also for use in the Hyderabad campaign. On 10 January, Badge was called to the office of Hindu Rashtra in Poona and was asked to provide two pieces of gun cotton explosive, two revolvers and five hand grenades. He was told to deliver the "stuff" at the Hindu Mahasabha Office in Dadar, Bombay on 14 January.' Das said that this part of Badge's testimony has not been substantiated by any witness.
'When Badge and Shankar reached Bombay on 14 January, Badge took the "stuff" to Dixit Maharaj's home and handed them over to his servant. Why did Badge take the weapons there? Because the weapons for the Hyderabad campaign were collected at Dixit Maharaj's home.*
'Dixit Maharaj's servant was not summoned in court. Badge's testimony is not substantiated merely by Dixit's statement that "Badge left the bag containing the 'stuff' with my servant". A case under the Police Act could have been registered against Dixit, but the government of the Bombay province did not initiate any steps in this direction. It is very likely that in order to save himself he could have struck a deal with the authorities and agreed to testify in this case according to the instructions of the prosecution. Thus, his testimony stands compromised and loses significance
'The Hyderabad question was in everyone's mind at that time. Were these weapons brought to Bombay to be sent to Hyderabad or for the murder of an unarmed old man? The prosecution claims that the "stuff" was to be taken to Delhi for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. Were so many weapons and explosives required to kill Gandhiji?
'Between the accused and the approver only a rudimentary relationship existed such as one between a client and a merchant. It is apparent from the prosecutions' statements that whenever the accused had a secret conference with Savarkar, Badge was kept away. When Apte asked Badge if he would go to Delhi with him and participate in murdering Mahatma Gandhi and Suhrawardy, and said that Savarkar had ordered the killing, Badge agreed without any hesitation. It is so surprising that Badge did not consider informing the police about this. When Apte and Godse went to take Savarkar's blessings one last time, they again left Badge outside. This is even more astonishing that the so-called conspirators did not trust Badge and yet they informed him about the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi.' Referring to the visit to Birla House on the morning of 20 January, Das said, 'The p
rosecution had failed to produce any taxi driver who could substantiate Badge's testimony.'
20 December 1948: Continuing his arguments, Das said, 'The prosecution has not said that after the failed attempt on 20th the conspiracy continued till 30 January. The witnesses of Birla House have given mutually contradictory testimonies, which are at variance from what Badge said. It is necessary to conduct identifications as per the law, but is it possible that someone can say, during identification, that he had seen a certain person walking around with six others? Countering the testimonies of Sulochana and Surjeet Singh the prosecution should accept that Nathuram Godse was not present at Birla House on 20 January, and that there was no conspiracy to murder Gandhi.'
The judge asked, 'It has been said by the prosecution that Apte and others got into the taxi in a state of panic and escaped from Birla House. If their intention was only to stage a peaceful demonstration, why did they panic?' Das replied, 'Too much importance should not be given to the fact that they ran away in panic. If the purpose was to murder Gandhiji that day, one of them, even Madanlal would have done so, but nothing of that sort happened. A conspiracy is planned and executed with the utmost secrecy. Even the prosecution does not say that there was any conspiracy after the 20th.'
The judge asked, 'If a conspiracy fails on a particular day, does it cease to exist? Jain's testimony has been branded as full of exaggeration. If it was so, he would have fallen prey to his exaggerations during the cross-examination.'
Das said, 'If Morarji Desai knew about the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi why did he not take steps to expose and prevent it? The lackadaisical approach of the authorities in this matter is unprecedented. Even if it is believed that there was a conspiracy, and Jain's testimony was true, even then the latter had revealed the names of only Madanlal and Karkare to Desai. His statement was based on hearsay and so the court must not accept it. On the night of 20 January, when Badge argued with Godse and Apte, the conspiracy had come to an end.'
Lets Kill Gandhi Page 76