Nagarvala is also incompetent because he did not record thestatement of Prof. Jain on 21 January itself.'
Then Inamdar raised objections about the method of investigation employed by the police. 'The place where the police had held the accused, in the office building of the Bombay CID headquarters, was freely accessible to the public at large, exposing them to public view, making it easy for them to be identified as the culprits.
The police kept witnesses in their custody before their statements were recorded; Madhukar Kale and Jagdeesh Goyal are two such witnesses. How can one expect such witnesses to tell the truth? P.L. Godbole first denied having seen Gopal Godse, yet the police went to see him. G.B. Kale was also kept in police custody. Who can believe that the police did not exert pressure on the witnesses?'
Inamdar then referred to the search carried out in Parchure's house by the police. 'Parchure was arrested on 17 February. By on whose orders were all the searches carried out? I am only referring to these things in court so that the court knows the behaviour of the police. A trouser and a bag were recovered from Apte and Gopal Godse while they were in custody. The court should not infer anything from these recoveries.
'Badge was cross-examined after the testimony of witnesses, which had an adverse effect on the trial of my clients.'
Referring to the identification parades, Inamdar complained, 'Govindram was asked to identify the accused after two months.'
Referring to the applications for leave submitted by Gopal Godse, Inamdar said, 'There are reasons enough to believe that Gopal Godse stayed in his village during the entire period of his leave. He had resumed duty on 26 January. When he learned that his elder brother had murdered Gandhiji, and that his wife had been threatened with assualt by a non-violent follower of Gandhiji, he immediately surrendered to the police. He went from Kirkee to Uksan, according to the police and he was arrested there.'
Inamdar said, 'Govindram has testified that he had seen Badge and Gopal Godse three days prior to the bomb explosion at the Marina Hotel. Gopal was in Kirkee on 16 January, no one has testified that he flew by plane to Delhi on 17 January. Thus Govindram's testimony is worthless.
'No witness from the Hindu Mahasabha Bhavan was summoned, who could have testified to Gopal's presence there. The forest guard also did not specifically say anything about seeing Gopal in the jungle behind the Hindu Mahasabha Bhavan.
'The day my client was taken for an identification parade, a complaint was lodged with the magistrate regarding the procedure which should have been considered. The behaviour of the police in this regard is very suspicious.
'Since Surjeet Singh did not have a licence to ply a taxi, his livelihood was dependent on being in the good books of the police so his testimony could have been heavily influenced by the police.
'The court should not derive any conclusion from the fact that on 20 January after the bomb explosion the accused fled from the scene in a state of panic.'
29 December 1948: Inamdar said, 'The description of the person who he had seen talking with Choturam, given by the witness Bhur Sinh to the police on the 20th is entirely different from his testimony in court. The prosecution claims that that person was Karkare, Bhur Sinh has described him as a thin and slightly built person but Karkare is very stout and robust. So the court must not believe Bhur Sinh's testimony. Apart from this, being a servant working at Birla House he is entirely in the control of the police. Bhur Sinh has also identified Gopal Godse, but looking at the contradictions and anomalies in his testimony his identification of Gopal Godse is of no import. Apart from this Bhur Sinh and Sulochana were made to identify the accused after a long time had elapsed.
'The manager of Frontier Hindu Hotel, Ramprakash, said that a person came to his hotel at 4.00 p.m. on the 20th and had reserved a room. He again saw the same person listening to the radio at 9 o'clock that night. Does this seem like- the behaviour of a person who had fled from the scene of the bomb explosion?
'Apart from this the handwriting expert has said in his testimony that the name "Rajgopalan" written in the hotel's register matches the handwriting specimen of Gopal Godse provided by the police. The handwriting expert, in his statement, has said that "Rajgopalan" has been written in a flowing continuous stroke of the pen. But in the cross-examination he admitted that while signing, the pen was lifted mid signature. The expert is a liar. He is a police servant and has given a statement to please his bosses.
'There were some corrections and alterations done to the signature, there was a difference in the ink too. If all this is taken into consideration the prosecution's claim that Gopal Godse was present in Delhi is altogether doubtful.'
Inamdar then referred to the mutual contradictions in Godbole's testimony. He said, 'It is not possible for a person to have been present in Bombay and Thana on the same day, so the court should not arrive at any conclusions against my client based on this.
'The manner in which the revolver was recovered from Gopal Godse is illegal. Panchas should have been appointed before he was searched. Godbole and Kale were in police custody so they can not be considered as panchas, because the police must have put them under pressure.
'The bag, said to have been recovered from Gopal Godse, is actually Badge's. After Badge was arrested his home was not searched. If it had been searched, it is possible that the bag would have been found there. Thus all the witness testimonies with regards to the bag must be discarded.
'The prosecution has alleged that Gopal Godse applied for leave to travel to Delhi. But it did not produce a single witness from Uksan to testify that Gopal Godse was not present in Uksan during that period. So the court must accept the defence's argument that Gopal Godse was present in Uksan.'
Explaining the reason behind Nathuram Godse nominating Gopal Godse's wife on his insurance policy, Inamdar said, 'It is enough to say that Gopal Godse was unable to save anything from his salary, Nathuram thought of providing for his brother's family.'
Then Inamdar threw light on the past history of Parchure. 'Parchure was the president of the Hindu Sabha and he had staged demonstrations against the Congress, so it was very possible that the Congress had falsely implicated him in this matter, out of spite.'
30 December 1948: Inamdar continued his arguments. He said, 'The testimonies of the Gwalior witnesses Madhukar Kale and Khire are mutually contradictory. Kale has claimed that on hearing the news of Gandhiji's murder he asked Parchure to shut his dispensary, but Khire has said that Parchure did it on his own. Would a person, who was desirous of Gandhiji's death, behave in such manner?'
Speaking about Parchure's confessional statement, Inamdar said, 'Magistrate Atal did not have the authority to do so. By going to the fort, Atal had lost his magisterial authority.
'Apart from this the Inspector-General of Gwalior Police Marsh Smith had ordered that Parchure be held in military custody. Except for the ruler no one has the power to pass such orders. Thus the military custody of Dr. Parchure was illegal.
'Magistrate Atal has said that it took him three hours to prepare and record the confessional statement. How can a seven-page statement be recorded in just three hours? This means that Parchure did not make a confessional statement; Magistrate Atal brought a prewritten statement and got Parchure to sign it. The circumstances under which the statement was recorded coupled with the fact that the prosecution did not present any credible witnesses to vouch for the authenticity of the statement, does not lead one to believe the prosecution's story. All the witnesses from Gwalior are doubtful. Thus my client must be set free.'
'The contention of the prosecution that no incident had occurred between the 20th and 30th which could have inflamed Godse's anger, and so it must be accepted that Gandhi's murder was not accidental but was according to a well-planned ongoing conspiracy holds no weight. The entire episode must be analysed psychologically. After failing to get volunteers from Parchure, Godse had become dejected and depressed.
'Nathuram was the editor of a newspaper, he was emotional,
high strung, unmarried and separated from his family. He had to endure imprisonment because of his beliefs. On arriving in Delhi Godse saw the plight of the refugees and he saw that the Government of India was absolutely handicapped and powerless in the face of Gandhiji's arm-twisting tactics. Was this not reason enough to enrage Nathuram?
'Parchure's father, S.G. Parchure, came and settled in Gwalior. The accused Parchure was born in Gwalior, and since his birth he has lived there. Thus there is no doubt about the fact that Parchure is a citizen of the princely state of Gwalior.' In conclusion, Inamdar said, 'The prosecution's entire case is doubtful and suspicious.'
With this ended the arguments of the defence counsels.
JUDGE CONGRATULATED BY BOTH THE PROSECUTION ANDDEFENCE
Daftary on behalf of the prosecution and Bhopatkar on behalf of the defence thanked and congratulated the judge for patiently hearing the matter.
Thus concluded the hearings in the Gandhi murder trial. Judge Atmacharan promised that he would deliver judgement within a month.
The recording of the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses went on for eighty-four days. The testimonies ran into 696 pages. Every question and answer was written in English and translated into Telugu, Marathi and Hindustani. Some witnesses had given their testimonies in Gujarati and Punjabi too.
The prosecution submitted 354 documents in court and the defence submitted 118. Eighty other articles relating to the trial were deposited in court.
A notable aspect was that the entire argument of the defence was based on proving that there was no conspiracy and that the act was entirely that of Nathuram Godse committed due to the outrage he experienced, an act of momentory insanity. The accused and their defence counsel used the trial to continuously harp on the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha's litany that Gandhi was responsible for the partitioning of India. The strategy was to create sympathy and support for the murderers of Gandhi and to the advocacy of the Hindu supremacists ideology of the Sangh and the Sabha.
The martyr Bhagat Singh and his fellow revolutionaries had used their trial to broadcast their patriotic ideology. Godse and his band of zealots, although never having emulated the deeds of Azad, Bhagat Singh, Bismil and Ashfaqullah Khan, aped their strategy and used the trial to preach their gospel of hate and bigotry.
THE JUDGEMENT
On 10 February 1949 at 11.30 am Judge Atmacharan delivered the judgement, in the Gandhi murder trial.
He sentenced Gandhi's murderer Nathuram V. Godse and his accomplice Narayan D. Apte to death by hanging.
Vishnu R. Karkare, Madanlal K. Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal V. Godse and Dr. Dattatreya S. Parchure were sentenced to life in prison. (In India this meant a maximum of fourteen years in prison.)
The judge found Vinayak Damodar Savarkar 'Not Guilty' and ordered his immediate release.
Badge, the approver, was also released in accordance with the conditional pardon granted to him.
Each accused rose as his sentence was read out. Before being removed from the dock all the accused raised slogans in court—'Hindu Dhami Ki fai', 'Hail Hindu Religion'; 'Tod ke rahenge Pakistan, Hindi Hindu Hindustan', 'We will destroy Pakistan, India will be a land of Hindi-speaking Hindus only', till they were taken away.
The judge informed the accused that they were free to appeal against their sentences within fifteen days in a higher court.
The judge recommended that Shankar Kistayya's sentence should be reduced from life imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
A DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENE IN COURT THAT DAY
The court was packed to capacity. The vicinity of the Red Fort was declared as a Restricted Area and a large force of policemen and soldiers were deployed to maintain law and order. At 11.20 am the room adjoining the dock was opened and, led by Nathuram Godse, the eight accused entered. Only Savarkar bore a very serious expression. The other accused, especially Godse, Apte and Karkare, looked cheerful and kept smiling and nodding at their family and acquaintances present in court.
Judge Atmacharan, wearing his regular black suit, entered the courtroom at exactly 11.30 am. All in the courtroom rose. The judge first called Nathuram Godse; he stood up. He sat down after listening to his sentence. Then Apte, Karkare, Madanlal, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse and Dr. Parchure were called and sentenced. In the end Judge Atmacharan called V. D. Savarkar, the judge declared that he found Vinayak D. Savarkar 'Not Guilty'. He was declared innocent of all the charges filed against him. The judge ordered that if he was not required he was to be released immediately. It took the judge twenty minutes to read out the sentences.
Judge Atmacharan left the court after informing the accused that they should take a copy of the judgement which was available with the court's clerk. Two minutes later the accused were removed from the dock.
After the court arose, it was declared that the Delhi district magistrate had promulgated the Public Security Ordinance in the Delhi province. He had ordered that Savarkar be kept in the Red Fort for the time being to maintain law and order.
All the confiscated arms, ammunition, explosives and bombs were to be preserved. The pistol used to murder Gandhi and the recovered spent bullets were also to be preserved. The judge ordered that no decision could be made about these without consulting the Union government. They could be required for display in a national museum.
The judgement was 204 pages long.
SAVARKAR PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING DELHI FOR THENEXT THREE MONTHS
On the evening of 10 February 1949, in accordance with the Punjab Public Security Act, the Delhi district magistrate ordered V. D. Savarkar to leave Delhi immediately and not to re-enter for the next three months.
JUDGE ATMACHARAN REPRIMANDS THE POLICE
Judge Atmacharan drew the attention of the Union government to the almost criminal negligence displayed by the police in preventing the tragedy. He wrote, 'I draw the attention of the Union government to the shocking inefficiency and the lack of initiative displayed by the police in investigating the matter between 20-30 January 1948. After the arrest of Madanlal, the Delhi Police had detailed information about the existence of a conspiracy to murder Gandhiji, in a very comprehensive statement made by Madanlal. Dr. J.C. Jain had informed the Honourable Minister, Morarji Desai, about the existence of a conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi, the Bombay Police were immediately given all the information. On the basis of these two statements, contact was immediately established between the Delhi and Bombay Police. But the Police failed in extracting any benefit from these two statements. If at that time investigations were carried out with due diligence and a bit of enterprise, it is possible that this tragedy could have been averted.'
This was a very severe indictment of the police by a presiding judge and was made part of a judgement. Surprisingly none of the policemen were taken to task. Senjevi and Rana were allowed to retire honourably, others were rewarded with promotions. Jamshed D. Nagarvala retired as India's top cop. Nagarvala, long after he retired from the police force, maintained that he was convinced that, without the help and active involvement of Savarkar in the conspiracy to murder Gandhi, the murderers would not have succeeded.
THE JUDGEMENT
Charge I:
Offences and Sentences
'That you Nathuram V. Godse, Narayan D. Apte, Vishnu R. Karkare, Madanlal K. Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal V. Godse, Vinayak D. Savarkar and Dattatreya S. Parachure between December 1,1947, and January 30, 1948, at Poona, Bombay, Delhi and other places agreed and conspired among and between yourselves and Digambar R. Badge, who has been tendered a pardon, Gangadhar S. Dandvate, Gangadhar Jadhav and Suryadev Sharma, who along with others not known or absconding, to do or cause to be done an illegal act. viz., to commit the murder of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi more popularly known as "Mahatma Gandhi" and that the same act viz., the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, was done in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy at Delhi on 30 January 1948, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Co
de and within the cognisance of the court.
'It has already been held established that there was a "conspiracy" to commit the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, that the conspiracy was definitely in existence in the beginning of January 1948 and continued till 30-1-1948. The "conspiracy" took place at Poona, Bombay, Delhi, Gwalior and other places and that among the conspirators were at least Nathuram V. Godse, Narayan D. Apte, Vishnu R. Karkare, Madanlal K. Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal V. Godse and Dattatreya S. Parachure along with Digambar R. Badge. These accused joined the "conspiracy" at different places and at different times. The offence of Nathuram V. Godse, Narayan D. Apte, Vishnu R. Karkare, Madanlal K. Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal V. Godse and Dattatreya S. Parachure, in the circumstances, clearly falls within the purview of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 302 of the Code.
'Nathuram V. Godse, Narayan D. Apte, Vishnu R. Karkare, Madanlal K. Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal V. Godse, and Dattatreya S. Parachure thus are clearly 'guilty' under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 302 of the Code.'
Charge II:
'That in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy between January 13, 1948, and January 20, 1948 you Nathuram V. Godse, Narayan D. Apte, Vishnu R. Karkare, Madanlal K Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal V. Godse, along with Digambar R. Badge A (1) transported without a licence to Delhi arms and ammunition viz., 2 revolvers with cartridges, in contravention of the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Arms Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(d) of the Indian Arms Act within the cognisance of the court;
(2) abetted each other in the commission of the above offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(d) of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognisance of the court;
B(l) at Delhi, had without a licence in your possesssion and under your control arms and ammunition, viz., 2 revolvers with cartridges, in contravention of the provisions of the Section 14 and 15 of the Indian Arms Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognisance of the court;
Lets Kill Gandhi Page 78