अमर शहीद अशफ़ाक़उल्ला ख़ाँ: व्यक्तित्व और कृतित्व (काकोरी के अमर शहीद का जीवन व रचनाएँ)

( 96 )
at Delhi are in his handwriting but denies all knowledge of the
"Manifesto of the Communist Party of India" Ex. P. A. 35, suggest-
ing that someone had placed it in his room and that it had been
then put into his trunk at the time of his arrest. He admits that
he left school in 1921 and joined the non-co-operation movement
but claims that he lost interest in the movement and rejoined his
school in 1924, since when he has taken no interest in politics. The
O. P. 150. verses of which Ex. P. A. 9 is a translation he explains by saying
that he is a poet and that he wrote the lines when he came to
know that Mr. Bedar M. L. C. had persuaded Banarsi Lal to become 10
an approver. The letter to Maulana Shah Abdul Qadir (Ex. P.
A. 6) in which he blames the latter for his position as a fugitive
and exile he explains by saying that this refers to a promise he
had made to Shah Abdul Qadir to join the non-co-operation move-
ment until the Khilafat question was settled. He had reason to
think that had he not joined that movement his name would not
have come to the notice of the police. Finally he claims that his
family supported the Government during the Mutiny and suffered
in consequence, that many of his relatives have served the Govern-
ment and that a member of such a family could not think of 20
conspiring against the Government. He offers to give any sort of
guarantee or undertaking that may be required
105. Ashfaqullah summoned 47 witnesses in his defence but
Defence witnesses. examined only 27. Most of these witnesses
were produced to show that he was elsewhere
on the dates when the dacoities with which he is charged were
committed. By the evidence of the remaining witnesses it is
sought to prove that there could have been no association between
him and 'Ram Prasad since the Shahjahanpur communal riots in
1924 and that his family has always been a very loyal and respect- 30
able one. As regards the alibi evidence it must be noted that
neither in his statement to the magistrate nor in his statement to
this court did Ashfaqullah suggest where he was on the dates in
question or say that he would produce evidence to prove that he
could not have been at the places where the dacoities were com-
mitted, nor did his counsel open his defence by explaining the
O. P. 151 nature of the evidence he intended to produce. The prosecution
suggest that this course was adopted in order to leave the defence
free to produce such evidence as would be most advantageous to
him, and that until some of the witnesses had actually arrived at 40
Lucknow the defence could not say what evidence they would be
prepared to give or whether in fact their evidence would be of any
use at all. It is true that several witnesses summoned did not
attend, pleading illness as an excuse, and it is also true that seve-
ral who attended were not produced in Court. The prosecution
also allege that in some cases witnesses required to give similar
evidence were summoned for different dates with the object of
making it more difficult for the prosecution to cross-examine them.
This may or may not be true.