The appellants were found guilty of conspiracy, waging war, murder, and unlawful possession of weapons under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, based on extensive evidence and clear analysis by the Commissioners.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellants before us were tried by Commissioners appointed under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1925. They were all charged with conspiracy to wage war against the King (Section 121-A, I. P. C.) and with waging or abetting the waging of such war (Section 121, I. P. C.) The appellant Sen was further charged with the murder of Capt. Cameron at Dalghat on 13th June 1932, and with the abetment of the murder of Mrs. Sullivan at Pahartali on 24th September 1932. The appellant Dastidar and the female appellant were charged with the attempted murder at Gahira on 19th May 1933, with the unlawful possession of explosives [Section 4(b). The Explosive Substances Act, 1908] and with the unlawful possession of arms and ammunition on the same date and at the same place [Section 19(f), Indian Arms Act 1878]. There is a further charge against the appellant Dastidar of attempting to murder Assistant Sub-Inspector Sasanko Bhattacharji on 6th March 1931.

2. The trial began on 15th June 1933. The Commissioners examined 170 witnesses, and in the course of the proceedings 346 documentary and material exhibits were tendered. The Commissioners delivered their judgment on 14th August 1933, convicting the appellants on all charges framed against them with the exception of the charge of attempted murder at Gahira of which the appellant Dastidar and the female appellant were found not guilty and acquitted. They sentenced the male appellants to death u/s 121, I. P. C, and the female appellant to transportation for life under the same section. They passed no separate sentences in respect of the other offences of which the appellants were convicted.

3. The only objection taken before the Commissioners as to the form and conduct of the trial was with reference to the charge u/s 4(b), Explosive Substances Act. The Commissioners overruled this objection, and when Mr. Basu for the appellant Dastidar was taking the point before us, the learned Advocate-General for the Crown stated that, inasmuch as no sentence had been passed under that section, he would have no objection if, in order to save the time of the Court, the convictions of the appellant Dastidar and the female appellant under it were set aside, and we thereupon decided to accept this suggestion. We have now to deal with the convictions under the other sections, against all of which the appellants have appealed. In addition, as the male appellants have been sentenced to death, the propriety of their conviction u/s 121, I. P. C, and of the sentences imposed upon them has to be considered by us under Ch. 27, Criminal P. C. The Commissioners have given a detailed account of the events at Chittagong during, the period beginning with the preparations for the Armoury Raid of 18th April 1930 and ending with the arrest of the appellants Tarakeswar Dastidar and Kalpana Dutt on 19th May 1933.

4. There is no need for us to recapitulate this account, for much of it is common ground, since counsel appearing for the appellants have generally speaking not sought to question the events themselves, but have argued that the connexion of their clients with them has not been established. We will deal first with the case of the appellant senior. Mr. Chatterjee, if he will permit us to say so, showed very great wisdom in abstaining from putting his client's case too high. He did not dispute the fact that the appellant was arrested at Gairala on 16th February 1933 and that being then in unlawful possession of a revolver and ammunition, he was guilty under the Arms Act. He further stated that documents found upon his person at the time of his arrest showed that he had been on terms of close association with one Pritilata Waddadar. This person is a girl of about 20 years of age, who admittedly took a leading part in the attack on the Pahartali Railway Institute on 24th September 1932, and whose dead body was afterwards found in the vicinity of the Institute. A post mortem examination showed the cause of he