23.164 It is indeed a very perplexing situation. According to Delhi Police they took the document which contained the name of Karkare; and mentioned the editor of the 'Agranee' or the 'Hindu Rashtra' which fact is flatly and emphatically denied by Nagarvala and it is still more perplexing that the name 'Agranee' is not mentioned in the fuller statement of Madanlal made on 24 January and a copy of which was given to Rana on 25 January 1948, nor was it mentioned in his police statement at Bombay after the murder. In spite of the name of 'Hindu Rashtriya' having been mentioned, it is astounding that the Delhi police made no effort to find out the identity of this person. It is still more astounding that the names of 'Hindu Rashtriya' was admittedly given to Rana though it is doubtable whether it was to Nagarvala or not, and yet no effort should have been made by him on his reaching Bombay or even Poona to find out as to who this person was and to warn both the Bombay Police and the Delhi Police to be on the look-out for him. It would be unbelievable if that thing did not happen as it did, that U.H. Rana should have gone through the statement of Madanlal along with Sanjevi, as Sanjevi's note shows and neither of them should, on 25th January, have taken the slightest trouble to find out from the intelligence Bureau or the Press Information Bureau or the C.I.D. as to who the proprietor of the 'Hindu Rashtra' was. Admittedly, there was mention of it in the statement of Madanlal of the 24th.
23.165 U.H. Rana denies that Sanjevi told him about the editor and proprietor of either 'Agranee' or 'Hindu Rashtra', he was emphatic that the names of these papers were never mentioned to him. He dose mention that the statement of Madanlal was made available to him and it was on that day that he came to know about the mention of the editor of the 'Hindu Rashtra' daily and the proprietor of the Shastra Bhandar, Poona and Karkare of Ahmednagar. It appears that there is some mistake in the mind of Rana because the statement, Ex. 1, does not mention the editor of 'Hindu Rashtra', although it does the proprietor of the 'Hindu Rashtra'. Due to the maze of documents which he had to study and on account of the lapse of over 20 years he might have been led into this confusion. The correct position appears to be that on the 25 January Rana did come to know of the complicity of a person who was the proprietor of the 'Hindu Rashtra' mispronounced by Punjabees as 'Rashtriya'. The question again arises, why was no effort made there and then to find out the identity of this person and why his full particulars were not called for from Poona as they were after the murder and even his photographs were obtained from there as shown by I.B. file No. 13/HA(R)/39-ll, Ex. 254-A.
LACUNA NO. 9
23.166 R.N. Bannerjee as witness No. 19 before this Commission stated that he did not know of the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi prior to 30 January 1948, and the first time he came to know about it was on the 31st at the post-cremation meeting. Normally, the police should have informed him of the conspiracy in his capacity as Secretary of the Home Ministry and Sanjevi was in constant touch with him. He added that Sanjevi had not informed the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi either.
23.167 According to the Punjab Police Rules, No. 24.15, special reports were to be sent by the Inspector General to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, but evidently, none were sent to Bannerjee. In reply to question No. 27 of the interrogative questionnaire to the Government of India regarding the duties of the Director of Intelligence Bureau vis-à-vis the Home Ministry, the position was described thus—
'It would be the duty of the Director, Intelligence Bureau, to keep the Home Minister and the Ministry of Home Affairs informed about the threat or danger to important persons like Mahatma Gandhi. It would also be his duty to caution officers and officials working under him to remain vigilant about such a threat or danger and to take such other measures necessary to collect further intelligence thereon. He would also warn the State CIDs about such developments and impress upon them their importance and urgency. In all these matters he would keep the Ministry of Home Affairs informed'.
23.168 Bannerjee stated that if he had known anything about the matter, he would have taken as much meticulous care in regard to what police was doing in regard to the Bomb Case investigation as he did after the murder.
23.169 It was also argued and rightly that if the Director, Intelligence Bureau, could send his own officers to Alwar, Agra, Gwalior after the murder why could he not have done this earlier after the bomb throwing?
23.170 M.K. Sinha said that if the information which Madanlal had given in his statement had been given to him as an I.B. officer, he would have got into touch with the C.I.D., Bombay, on the secraphone and would have told them what had happened and requested them to try and arrest the persons whose descriptions had been given by Madanlal. He would also have got in touch with the Inspector General of Police and the C.I.D., at Poona and would have been constantly in touch with them to find out the progress of the investigation.
LACUNA NO. 10
23.172 It cannot be called a failure on the part of Sanjevi himself but is a matter which does concern the conduct of the Delhi Police. In the noting made in the Government of India Secretariat made on the explanation given by Sanjevi and Nagarvala, Ex. 14, there is a remark by Sardar Patel that it was a mistake to have sent a Deputy Superintendent of Police to Bombay, with which the Commission agrees particularly after having seen the whole course of conduct of the two respective forces, Bombay and Delhi Police. But that fact alone was no justification for Nagarvala not trying to find out from the officers what they knew or why they had been sent.
23.173 There is one matter which has not been explained and for which explanation could not be sought from Deputy Superintendent Jaswant Singh because he is dead and Inspector Balakishan was rather ineffective. And that was why did the two police officers who went to Bombay, besides giving the information which they allege they gave to Nagarvala and which they have incorporated in their police diaries No. 3-A and No. 4-B, not orally tell Nagarvala what was within their knowledge besides what was contained in Ex. 5-A. The two offices should have told Nagarvala that they were themselves present during Madanlal's interrogation. They should have apprised Nagarvala of the facts. The explosion of the bomb, the recovery of a hand grenade, and the association of Savarkar, were all pointers to attempted political assassination by Savarkar's followers rather than kidnapping by Punjabis even if directed by General Mohan Singh of the I.N.A. which that gentleman has strongly repudiated in his statement before the Commission which statement the Commission accepts.
Chapter XXIV of the Kapoor Commission's Report deals with the whether Delhi Police had given the Bombay Police Madanlal's statement Exhibit 5-A.
Since this has been covered in details previously except for a few new fact I have not reproduced much from the report.
24.23 Case Diary No. 3-A. The next diary of Jaswant Singh is 3-A dated Bombay January 22, 1948, in paragraph 3 of which it is stated that the two police officers 'contacted' Nagarvala at the C.I.D. office where he was 'again' apprised of the full facts of the case 'and an English note, which incorporates a precis of Madanlal's statement with a note of S.P. New Delhi at its foot was handed over to Nagarvala Sahib who read this note carefully and kept it. He returned a (the?) written note covering this case which is attached'.
'Jinhon ne is yadasht ko baghor parah aur apen pas yadashat rakhi. Tahriri note mutliqa muqadama haza wapis di joke laf haza hai'.
And the document attached is Ex. 5-A.
24.24 The translation of diary No. 3-A seems to be slightly inaccurate; it should read —
'He read the memorandum carefully and kept an extract from it. He returned the written note (the memorandum) regarding the case above referred to, which is attached herewith.'
This document Ex. 5A is undated and unsigned. It is a disjointed account of events alleged to have been given by Madanlal. It is scrappy and is written in two distinct handwritings and distinct inks on both sides of a foolscap size sheet of paper.
EX. 5-A WHEN WRITTEN AND BY WHOM
24.27 In this context it is very necessary to see when E
x.5A came into existence and why it was scribed; because if it was not in existence on 21st January it could not have been taken to Bombay. It is necessary therefore to examine the evidence dealing with the authorship of Ex.5A and the date of its being scribed. The important witnesses on this point are Nos. 42 R.C. Bhatia who at the time was Inspector in charge of Parliament Street Police Station. No. 13 Rai Sahib Rikhikesh who at the time was Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., New Delhi and No. 17 Amar Nath Bhatia who at the time was Superintendent of Police New Delhi, i.e. the two Police Superintendents of Delhi and the Station House Officer of the Parliament Street Police Station. A Photostat copy of Ex. 5-A is attached.
R.C. BHATIA, WIT 42
24.28 The account of witness R.C. Bhatia as to how Ex.5A came into existence was this that during the course of interrogation of Madanlal, he could not remember when it was, he was 'asked to take down'. It might have been three or four days after the arrest of Madanlal. The document was shown to him and he said that it was in his hand writing only up to the words 'plan chalked out.... Went in tonga.'' i.e. up to the middle of the back of the page. The rest of the document beginning with the words 'with Karkare at about 3.45 p.m. from Marina Hotel' are not in his handwriting nor that portion of the document at the back which was enclosed within a red pencil line: (this was done by the Commission). The portion other then what R.C. Bhatia admits to be in his hand is in a different handwriting and in different ink. And this, according to R.C. Bhatia, is in the handwriting of Police Superintendent Amar Nath Bhatia with whose handwriting he is familiar. He also said that it is not in the handwriting of Deputy Superintendent Jaswant Singh.
24.29 Madanlal he said was interrogated several times and it was on one of these occasions that the notes were dictated to him, and he was not sure whether what was contained in Ex. 5A was repeated to him during interrogation. He could not say why the note was prepared. The dictation, he said, must have been seen by Superintendent Amar Nath Bhatia but he was not sure. But looking at the portion which was in the handwriting of Amar Nath Bhatia, this witness said that the dictation must have been by him. When his attention was drawn to the diary of Deputy Superintendent Jaswant Singh, the witness said it must have been dictated before Jaswant Singh left for Bombay. The statement of this witness is vague as to the sequence of events as to dates and even as to the occasion relating to scribing of Ex. 5A but after the lapse of twenty years it would not be unexpected.
RAI SAHIB RIKHIKESH, WIT. 13
24.30 The next witness in this connection is Rai Sahib Rikhikesh who was Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. at the time. Unfortunately, he is in failing health and is unable to see as he has practically lost his eye-sight but happily he readily appeared before the Commission, though at great personal inconvenience.
24.31 On 21 January 1948 Madanlal was taken to Civil Lines Police Station where R.S. Rikhikesh interrogated him for about 3 or 4 hours but he disclosed no names. He only gave descriptions of persons. All this the witness took down on a piece of paper which was handed over to Deputy Superintendent Jaswant Singh when he was leaving for Bombay. This was done under the orders of the D.I.B.. Sanjevi. The police case diaries No. 2 and 2-A show that interrogation was by Inspector Jai Dayal under orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. When Ex. 5 which is a copy of Ex. 5A was read out to the witness, his reply was that that was not what he had written nor did he send it to Bombay. The original of the document could not be shown to him because unfortunately he is unable to see. He said he had written down the descriptions of the conspirators as given by Madanlal which was something like what was readout to hum from the police case diary No. 1, page 13, paragraph 15 which is marked Ex. 36. The statement was marked Ex. 6 by Pathak. Rikhikesh remembered that Madanlal had said that the leader of the party was a Maratha who was the editor of a Hindu newspaper, probably 'Hindu Rashtra' but he could not remember if Madanlal had also mentioned the 'Agranee' but he did not say that the man was from Poona. He was told by the D.I.B., to give a typed copy of whatever Madanlal had stated up to that time which he did.
24.32 He was asked how it was that in spite of Madanlal's arrest and his mentioning Karkare and the editor of the Poona journal no effective steps were taken to prevent the murder. His answer was:—
'We did our level best. The conspirators came from Maharashtra. It was very difficult for us to make out who was who. Many officers from different parts of India came here and mentioned names of many suspects. Some of them we arrested and interrogated; others we just interrogated. But we did not succeed in getting any useful information about these persons. It should have been possible for the Bombay Police to have arrested the editor of the Poona Journal because they knew his identity. Similarly there should have been no difficulty in arresting Karkare who had a shop in Ahmednagar.'
This emphasises clear information of the identity of two persons (i) an editor whose particulars the Bombay Police should have been known and (ii) the other Karkare of Ahmednagar, both of whom the Bombay Police could easily have arrested.
24.33 The witness has deposed that during the course of the interrogation of Madanlal he got the following names:—
(1) Servant of Karkare, but not the name of Karkare whose business was mentioned.
(2) The head of the conspiracy was the editor of a newspaper from Poona.
(3) Another person mentioned was a discharged Army Officer.
(4) A fat Maratha who financed the conspiracy and had a shop at the Chauk at Ahmednagar dealing in arms and ammunition.
(5) Shankar. But it may be pointed out that that name is neither in the first statement of Madanlal, Ex. 6, nor in his fuller statement, ex. 1.
24.34 It appears that this witness has confused the names and descriptions. Shankar's name is neither in Ex. 6 nor I Ex. 1. The discharged Army Officer also was mentioned by Godse after his arrest on 30 January 1948 and is not mentioned in either of the two statements of Madanlal. The name of Karkare was mentioned by Madanlal in both his statements. As a matter of fact, that is the only name mentioned by Madanlal. But his description in the statement Ex. 1 and 6.
24.35 The name 'Shastra Bhandar' is mentioned in Ex. 1 but not in Ex. 6. The description fat Maratha is nowhere to be found.
24.36 All this shows is that this is a case of lapsus memoriae which is not unnatural or unexpected after the lapse of twenty years, even if the physical ailments which afflict this police officer are ignored.
24.43 In cross-examination by Chawla this witness said that he did not give a covering letter for Nagarvala. He was sitting at Sanjevi's house when Jaswant Singh came. When Jaswant Singh was leaving, he, Rikhikesh, gave him instructions as to what he was to do in Bombay.
24.44 Rikhikesh interrogated Madanlal for about 6 hours. He started at about 4 or 5 p.m. and went on till late at night. Madanlal had given full description of his co-conspirators and the places where they were likely to be found. But this seems to be inaccurate because this information so elaborately stated is not even in the fuller statement, Ex. 1. The witness took down the descriptions and the addresses as there was no time to do anything more elaborate. The witness did not give the full statement to Jaswant Singh but descriptions and addresses of the conspirators. The object of sending the officers by air was to take immediate action and effect arrests. He added that he must have given the usual instructions to Jaswant Singh to explain the facts of the case to Nagarvala and also tell him on behalf of Sanjevi that the matter was urgent and that he should report back any progress made in the case which seems to have been ignored altogether.
A.N. BHATIA. WIT. 17
24.45 The next witness relevant to this matter is witness No. 17, Amar Nath Bhatia, who was then the Superintendent of Police, New Delhi and is now an Advocate. He stated that Madanlal was interrogated at the Parliament Street Police Station, where he made the statement, Ex. 6. He named only one person, Karkare, but gave descriptions of six persons.
24.46 Deputy Superintendent Jaswant Singh and Inspector Balakishen of the C.I.D. wer
e sent to Bombay under his directions but the decision was of the D.I.B. and of Police Superintendent Rikhikesh. When asked what instructions he gave to Deputy Superintendent Jaswant Singh, he said:
'We gave to Deputy Superintendent Jaswant Singh a list of persons who were suspected. By a list of persons I mean the description which we had gathered from the statement made by Madanlal. I gave to Jaswant Singh whatever we had. I could not give him more than what we had. We had also told Jaswant Singh that they were to seek the assistance, cooperation and instructions from the officers in Bombay who would know more about the Maratha accused than we did.
Q. 'Did you tell them as to whose assistance they should seek?
Ans. As far as I know, Rana had taken upon himself to do everything which was necessary.
(By Commission) Q. Would you be surprised to learn that Rana had not left Delhi for Bombay till 25th of January? How could he then have taken upon himself to do everything that was possible?
Ans. I only know this much that Rana had taken upon himself to do everything which was possible. I do not know when he left Delhifor Bombay.'
24.48 He was then asked how he could have ordered Jaswant Singh to get persons arrested in Bombay whose names and places of residence he did not know because up to the time the officers left for Bombay, Madanlal had only given the name of Karkare and some description of others, his reply was—
Lets Kill Gandhi Page 100