JUDGMENT

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J. - The appellant, Ashok Chandra Nandy having died since the institution of these appeals, there are at present before the Court 18 appellants, all of whom have been convicted under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code of offences against the State. Two of the appellants, Barindra Kumar Ghose and Ullaskar Dutt, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death eight of them, i.e., Indra Nath Nandi, Upendra Nath Banerjee, Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar, Hrishikesh Kanjilal, Sudhir Kumar Sircar, Sailendra Nath Bose, Hem Chandra Das and Barendra Chandra Sen, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A, 122 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life; Abinash Chandra Bhattacharjee was convicted under Sections 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life: Indu Bhushan Roy was convicted under Sections 121A and 122 and sentenced to transportation for life, Pares Chandra Maulik, Sisir Kumar Ghose and Nirapada Roy were convicted under Sections 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for ten years; Sushil Kumar Sen and Bal Krishna Hari Kane were convicted u/s 121A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years' transportation, and Krishna Jiban Sanyal was convicted u/s 121A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. On all, except the last three, the additional penalty has been imposed of forfeiture of their property. The appellants were so convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge of Alipore, who heard the ease with Assessors. Both the Assessors considered the appellants, Barindra Kumar Ghose, Ullaskar Dutt, Upendra Nath Banerjee, Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar, Hrishikesh Kanjilal, Hem Chandra Das and Indu Bhushan Roy guilty of an offence u/s 122 of the Indian Penal Code, and to one of them it appeared that another of the appellants Pares Chandra Maulik, was guilty under the same section. But in no other case did either Assessor deem the guilt of the accused to be established on any of the charges preferred against them, though one of them considered Abinash guilty u/s 124A.

2. The prosecution story may be briefly stated. According to it, the appellant, Barindra Kumar Ghose, has throughout been the master mind; he conceived the scheme, he designed the means, and he inspired the work. As far back as 1903 or 1904 he began what he believed to be his mission of preaching throughout Bengal the independence of India. Then he returned for a while to Baroda, where his brother, Arabinda Ghose, was a Professor in the Gaekwar's College. In 1905 came the partition of Bengal, which, according to the case for the Crown, was "unquestionably a land-mark in this attempted revolution," and was used in its promotion. This is how it has been described by the learned counsel for the Crown in its bearing on the present case. ''Those who used this engine regarded it from this point of view--that it was a line of demarcation between a population who were the same in kindred, faith, colour, caste, creed and sympathies. They said an unnecessary line of demarcation had been drawn, and that the effect of it had been to sever people who had a common point of view." Then, after a reference to the "Jugantar" newspaper which has played a large part, it is said, in preparing the minds of the youth of Bengal to receive the insidious doctrines of rebellion, he proceeded: "The partition would, therefore, lend an additional tone to their invectives in this paper, and from that point of view they could understand why it was that the 19th October had always been regarded as a day of humiliation and prayer. Those who used it had recognised the full value of the partition as a fresh lever to work on the minds of the people." And so, according to the theory of the Crown, the partition induced a state of mind in the young men of Bengal ready to receive the doctrines of independence whic