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

( 55 )
dictate and will manage the provincial and inter-provincial mat-
ters.
Though I do not know the way the U. P. men will receive me
after such a great silence of more than a year.
4. Try to remove their grievance in all respects.
5. To frame a definite programme to give a great blow to
the Government within five years; though it is certain that revo-
lution will not be successful within so little time.
6. To find out ways to collect funds and arms.
10 As in other cases the letter found appears to have been a
draft and Bakshi has utilized the spare paper to put into writing his
current thoughts and plans. The Examiner of Questioned Docu-
ments has given reasons for believing that all these writings from
which I have quoted were written by Bakshi.
After he had been personally searched Bakhshi was taken to
the Gandhi Ashram at Bhagalpur where he was staying. He
pointed out the room himself and it was opened with one of the
keys found on him. Amongst other things found in the room was
a locked basket which contained four loaded 12 bore cartridges
20 (Exhibit P. B. 18). Various papers were also found purporting
to belong to one Benoy Kumar Ghosh in whose name Bakshi now
admits that he had been passing, and there were some letters
addressed to one Mohit Chandra Adhikari, who had been sharing
the room with Bakshi, but they are of no particular importance.
The discovery of two maps (of Bengal and Bihar and Orissa
vide Exhibit P. B. 16) is possibly significant when considered in
the light of the Twelve Points (Exhibit P. 162) and the discovery
of three sketch maps at the Dakhshineswar House where R. N.
Lahiri was arrested (vide Exhibit P. 213). Several of the letters O. P. 86.
30 found in his possession e. g. Exhibit P. B. 5 (A) P. B. 6, P. B.
9 (A) and P. B. 10 suggest that Bakhshi was carrying on corres-
pondence with other conspirators while he was absconding. These
are all written in guarded language and convey little definite
information. Exhibit P. B. 6 mentions that 'my letters are inter-
cepted and apprehending that yours too are intercepted. I was
waiting for a chance, the bearer of the letter is our friend'. The
letter is signed 'Atul Gobinda Deb' and the writer is told to reply
to 'Amarendra Nath Chakravarty.'
40 64 The association of Bakshi with Jogesh Chandar Chatter-
ji at Benares is suggested but not definitely
Association of Bakshi proved by the evidence of certain Bengalis
with Jogesh Chandar who lived there. Jatindra Narayan Santra
Chatterji. (P. W. 68) states that Bakshi hired a room
from a relation of his in No. 164, Ganesh
Mahal, at the beginning of the rainy season nearly four years ago

( 56 )
(i. e. 1923), saying that he wanted it for a friend. Sarat Chandar
Vidyaratna (P. W. 67) had been living in the house where
this room is for the last six years. He identified Jogesh Chan-
dar Chatterji as one of the men who had occupied the room,
and states that before Jogesh came to live there it was
occupied by a man named Satish. Bakshi used to visit Satish
but the witness does not remember having seen him visit
Jogesh. This evidence is corroborated by that of Mr. Mukerji,
Deputy Superintendent C. I. D. Benares, who states that he
came to know in May, 1924, that Jogesh Chandar Chatterji was 10
occupying one of the rooms at No. 164 Ganesh Mahal. He
made a note of it in his diary at the time. An extract from
his diary dated 17th May, 1924, has been exhibited (Ex. P. 436).
This is to the effect that S. N. Bakshi had approached the
O. P. 87. owner of No. 164, Ganesh Mahal and taken a room for Satish
Chandar Singh (who according to Mr. Mukherji was known to be
a revolutionary). Some time after this Jogesh Chandar Chatterji
came to Benares and put up there. Satish Chandra kept
Jogesh Chandar in his own room for a time and then departed
leaving him there. Jogesh Chandar occupied the room for about 20
three months and then shifted to No. 20 Pataleshwar. Patalesh-
war is the locality in which the Bakshi family live. This evidence
shows that Jogesh Chandra visited Benares some time before
his visit to Shahjahanpur and the natural inference in the light
of Ex. P. 198 (Proceedings of the Provincial Council) is that a
branch of the revolutionary organisation was formed at Benares
during his stay there; if it had not already been formed by his
predecessor Satish Chandar.
65. There is a considerable amount of evidence to corrobo-
rate the story of the approvers that certain
Evidence that Bakshi and other outside members visited Shahjahanpur. outside members of the revolutionary society,
including Bakshi, visited Shahjahanpur from
time to time. I note briefly below the main
points in this evidence and shall discuss its importance in con-
nection with the dacoities later.
Kishan Lal (P. W. 22) let a house to Banarsi Lal at the end
of July or the beginning of August, 1925, on the understanding
that it was required for canal contractors and clerks. It was
occupied by five or six men for thirteen days. He saw one of
the men in the house when he went to get the grass cut on the
roof and identified in Jail Bakshi as this man.
Ram Lal (P. W. 23) is the owner of a 'tikasar' or lodging
house at Shahjahanpur. He saw M. N. Gupta there twice, once
O. P. 88. before and once during the rains of 1925. The last occasion was
ten or twelve days before the Kakori dacoity. Banwari Lal came
to visit M. N. Gupta at the 'tikasar'. Ram Lal identified both
these men in Jail.

( 57 )
Bhola Nath Naik constable (P. W. 24) used to check and
make entries in the register of this 'tikasar'. Ex. P. 477
is the register. On the 19th April, 1925, two persons came
to the 'tikasar' who gave their names as Mohan Lal and
Badri Pershad. The Examiner of Questioned Documents says
that he is definitely of the opinion that the signature 'Badri
Pershad' is in the hand writing of S. N. Bakshi. On the 27th,
July, 1925, a man came to the 'tikasar' who gave his name as
'Kanhaiya Lal'. He was described in the register as of 'long face,
10 wheat complexion, ordinary build, average height, age 26 years'.
The Examiner of Questioned Documents says the signature 'Kan-
haiya Lal' in the register is probably by the same man who made
certain entries in the Jhansi Municipal register, that is to say, S.
N. Bakshi, but he is not certain about this. It is clearly proved,
however, that Bakshi did visit the 'tikasar' as Bhola Nath
identified him in Jail as one of the men he had seen there. Bhola
Nath also said that he had seen him there two or three times in
1925 prior to the train dacoity. It is also significant that just
above the entry 'Kanhaiya Lal' there is the signature of Raushan
Singh who was an accused in the main case. Raushan Singh was
known at the 'tikasar' and so gave his real name. It should also
be noted that Babu Gobind Bihari, C. I. D. Inspector could find
nobody at the addresses given by 'Badri Pershad' and 'Kanhaiya
Lal'.
Gauri Shankar (P. W. 61) is the pujari of a temple at
Shahjahanpur which was built by the father of Banarsi Lal. He
had occasion to visit Banarsi Lal two or three times a week in
connection with the affairs of this temple. On one occasion
he saw three strangers at Banarsi Lal's house and he saw the O. P. 89.
30 same men the next day at the ghat near his temple. He
identified these men in jail as M. N. Gupta, R. K. Khattri
and S. N. Bakshi.
Gauri Shankar's story is supported by the evidence of Ram
Charan (P. W. 62) who used to occupy the upper story of Banarsi
Lal's house. He also identified in jail these same three men.
He says he first saw Bakshi there in the cold weather two
and a half years ago. He came to visit the three men at the
tikasar of whom M. N. Gupta and R. K. Khattri were two. The
following hot weather, that is the hot weather of 1925, Bakshi
stayed in the house with the same three men. It is clear from this
that Bakshi, M. N. Gupta, R. K. Khattri and probably also Banwari
Lal used to visit Shahjahanpur for the purpose of conferring with
Banarsi Lal and others, if not for other purposes also. It may
also be noted here that this last witness, Ram Charan, further
states that Ram Pershad and Ashfaqullah often used to visit
Banarsi Lal. As he occupied the same house he was clearly in
a position to know about such visits.

with another ( 58 )
66. The evidence of Mr. Mukherji, Deputy Superintendent
Activities of Bakshi at Benares. C. I. D. Benares, shows that Bakshi first
came to the notice of the police in 1923 when
he invited the public to attend a meeting of
what later became the Central Health Union. The public notices
were issued in Bakshi's name. Mr. Mukherji attended the meet-
ing and noticed that Bakshi took a leading part in it. He was
secretary of the Union and R. N. Lahiri and M. N. Gupta were
members. Exhibit P. 448 (a) which Bakshi admits is in his hand-
writing, is the record of the proceedings of the meeting of the 10
managing committee, dated 7th June, 1923. Narindra Deb Bhatta-
charya (P. W. 65) who was acquainted with the Bakshi family
O. P. 90. and lived next door to them, was a member of the Union but
his evidence does not add much to our information about it.
There can be no doubt that it started purely as an athletic club
and professed to eschew politics. In his statement to the magis-
trate Bakshi said that he became secretary of the Union in the
middle of 1923 and continued as such until the middle of 1924, and
the evidence of Narindra Deb is to the same effect. In this court,
after examining the proceedings (Ex. P. 448), he corrected this 20
statement pointing out that after being secretary he became assis-
tant secretary on the 13th November, 1923. About a month later,
he says he left Benares for Lucknow and then ceased to be a
member of the Union. He denies being a member during the
time that R. N. Lahiri and M. N. Gupta were members. To some
extent this appears to be correct. An examination of the proceed-
ings Ex. P 448 shows that Bakshi was elected secretary of the Union,
then known as the Aryan Athletic Association, in March 1923.
He also originally signed the proceedings as president. On the
21st June, 1923, Bakshi was again elected secretary. In July the 30
name of the association was changed to the Central Health Union.
At a meeting of the managing committee on 9th August 1923,
R. N. Lahiri was admitted as a member. On the 13th November
1923 Bakshi was elected assistant secretary. When he resigned
this post and severed his connection with the Union does not appear
from the proceedings, but it was not until the 21st July, 1925, when
he was again in Benares that M. N. Gupta was admitted as a
member. At a meeting dated 25th July 1925, we find that R. N.
Lahiri was elected assistant secretary in his absence, but the
proceedings of the 31st August show that he did not accept this 40
post.
The record of the proceedings about this time indicate that
O. P. 91. though Bakshi had not resumed membership he was still taking
an interest in the Union. Both he and M. N. Gupta, however,
appear to have been in disfavour, for some reason unexplained,
with those who were at that time in control. At a meeting of the
4th September, 1925, the following resolutions were passed.
(1) that no outsiders be allowed into the field without the

( 59 )
permission of the Captain and that S. N. Bakshi be requested by
the Secretary not to come into the premises of the Union in
contravention of this.
(2) that whereas the attitude of Manmotha Nath Gupta is
considered to be prejudicial to the interests of the Union he be
requested by the Secretary to tender resignation to (sic) the mem-
bership of the Union and that in case he does not tender his resigna-
tion within two days after this request is made, his name be
removed from the register.
10 On the 6th September the resignation of M. N. Gupta was
accepted. That the Union was still having trouble with Bakshi,
however is shown by a resolution which reads—'Somehow to
check the entrance of Mr. Sachindra N. Bakshi into the club
premises'. It appears therefore that Bakshi was an active member
of the Union at the same time that R. N. Lahiri was a member,
but that he was not actually a member when M. N. Gupta was a
member, though he visited the Union at that time.
67. Mr. Mukherji states that Bakshi was under surveillance
from May 1925, but had been a political
[Margin: Reports of head constable Bhawani Sahai] suspect since May 1924. He ordered head
constable Bhawani Sahai (P. W. 71) to watch
his movements in May 1925. Reports Ex. P. 178-182 were
made by Bhawani Sahai to his sub-inspector Ramini Mohan
Mukherji (P. W. 72) prior to the Kakori dacoity. This evidence
has been produced by the prosecution mainly to prove that Bakshi [Margin: O. P. 92.]
was absent from Benares at the time of the Kakori dacoity. The
reports however are also of interest and importance as showing
Bakshi's association with M. N. Gupta and continued interest in
the Central Health Union or its members. Relevant extracts are
as follows:—
Ex. P. 178 dated 5th June 1925. 'At 7 o'clock in the evening
Sochin Bakshi (i. e. the accused) Manmotho Nath Sen Gupta and
others about 30, came out of Deonik Sabha with the photo of
C. R. Das and went round Dasa Sumedh Ghat for the realisation
of funds for the C. R. Das Memorial and returned to Deonik
Sabha about 9-30 p. m.'
Ex. P. 179 dated 5th July 1925. 'It is submitted that
to-day about 8-30 p. m. Sochin Bakshi left Deonik Sabha in
company with Manmotho Nath Gupta along with the members of
the C. R. Das Memorial Fund.'
Ex. P. 180 dated 15th July 1925. 'At about 3 p. m. Sochin
Bakshi went to star Homeopathic Medical Hall. For about an hour
he remaind inside there and thereafter went on walking with a boy
who is a member of the Health Union Club'.
Ex. P. 181 dated 20th July 1925 also mentions him walking

( 60 )
with boys who were members of the Health Union Club.
Ex. P. 182 dated 23rd July 1925 mentions him and M. N.
Gupta with some boys visiting the Health Union Club. On the
28th July 1925 Bhawani Sahai reported to the Sub-Inspector as fol-
lows (Ex. P. 474) 'Today from 5 A. M. to 9 A. M. Sochin Bakshi
was watched but he could not be seen. It appears that he has gone
out somewhere'. It is proved by the evidence of Bhawani Sahai
and sub-inspector Ramini Mohan Mukerji that Bakshi did not
O. P. 93. return to Benares till the 15th August, 1925. Bhawani Sahai repor-
ted on that date (Ex. P 475) that he had seen him talking with a 10
boy. On the 19th August also he reported that he had seen him
talking with boys and also with Manmotho Nath Gupta (Ex. P
183.) On the 20th August there is a report (Ex. P 184) that Bak-
shi visited the house of Manmotho Nath Gupta at 10-15. p. m.
He was again in the company of M. N. Gupta on the 23rd August
(Ex. P 185) and the 25th August (Ex. P 186). On the 26th August
(Ex. P 187) he could not be found. Azad (absconding) was seen
talking to M. N. Gupta on that date and also on the 28th August
and 15th September, 1925.
68. The evidence of constable Kunj Bihari (P. W. 98) shows 20
Activities of Bakshi at Jhansi. that Bakshi was at Jhansi during the cold wea-
ther of 1924-25. Altogether he was there for six
or seven months. Both he and Mukandi Lal
used to visit the house of one Kishan Gopal, the Congress Secretary.
The appeal (Ex. P 298) to the People of Jhansi for funds to sup-
port the Athletic Club there (signed by Sachindra Nath and Rudra
Narayan Singh as 'organisers') considered in the light of his similar
activities at Benares, suggests that Bakshi had been sent to Jhansi
as district organiser of the propaganda department there. His
knowledge about the broadcasting of 'the Revolutionary' as shown 30
by Ex. P. 288 and the statement therein that the pamphlets have 'at
last' been circulated in Jhansi suggest that he knew more about
their circulation there and elsewhere than is admitted. I have
already shown his attempts to obtain employment while at Jhansi,
and his readiness to take a post on a nominal salary of Rs. 20
a month in the office of a paper called the 'Swadhin'.
69. The case against Bakshi under section 121A, I. P. C.
rests therefore on the evidence of the appro-
Summary of case against Bakshi. vers, on the fact that he absconded on the
O. P. 94. arrest of the main body of conspirators, on
his assumption of false names both before and after their arrest,
on the evidence to prove his visits to Shahjahanpur and his
association with other alleged revolutionaries both there and at
Benares, on his activities at Benares and Jhansi, specially in the
formation or attempted formation of athletic clubs, and on the
papers and letters found either in his trunk at Jhansi or on his
person at Bhagalpur. It is unnecessary for me to say much

( 61 )
more about :these. The 'appeal to the Nationalists' and other
papers contain unmistakeable indications of his revolutionary and
communistic leanings and the letter addressed to ' My country-
men at the Gauhati Congress' frankly admits that he is a rebel
and revolutionary. The lists of books found in his trunk are
clear evidence of his connection with the other conspirators. The
writing on Ex. P. B. 7 suggesting the formation of a military
department and on Ex. P. B. 11 proposing the creation of a
central body of five United Provinces members, the framing of a
10 definite programme to give a great blow to the Government
within five years and the exploration of methods to collect funds
and arms, show that even while he was absconding Bakshi was
interesting himself in schemes to further the revolutionary cause.

( 75 )
CHAPTER V. O. P. 116.
The Kakori Train Dacoity.
83. The story of the train dacoity on the 9th August 1925 is
told in most detail by the guard Jagannath
Story of the guard, Jagan- Prasad (P. W. 4). He states that after the
nath Prasad. train had proceeded a mile from Kakori outer
signal in the direction of Alamnagar the communication cord was
pulled. The train began to stop and before it had finally stopped he
got out to see what was the matter. It will be seen from Ex. P. 86
10 that the train consisted (in the order given) of engine, empty
brake van, three third class bogies, a first and second class com-
posite coach, a mixed inter class and third class bogie, three
third class bogies, an officer's saloon and a brake van divided
into two compartments. Jagannath Prasad was in this rear brake
van. On getting out he went towards the engine on the left
hand side of the train. When he reached the third class com-
partment near the inter class compartment he saw three men
dressed in khaki coming in his direction, one of whom was
Ashfaqullah. Behind these three men were a railway doctor
20 named Gupta (P. W. 25) and an ice vendor named Abdul Wadud
(P. W. 28). They both told the guard that these three men had
pulled the communication cord. The guard asked them if this
was correct and one of them replied in the affirmative, saying
he had left a box behind at Kakori. They went on past him,
while he followed, asking them for their tickets. They made no
reply. On reaching the brake van the guard who was still follow-
ing them found that there were some men inside it and some
outside it, numbering altogether 20 to 25. The three men joined O. P. 117.
them. Ashfaqullah then took a bag from his neck and firing
30 began. One man shouted to the passengers telling them to remain
in their carriages and another man ordered the guard to lie
down, saying that if he did not his head would be blown off.
The guard did as he was ordered lying down on his side some
four or five paces from the brake van which he could still par-
tially see. He heard one man say 'Jamadar, throw the box
out of the brake van' and there followed the noise of a box
falling down. As soon as it had fallen down from the van the
dacoits began to try and force it open. Meanwhile other dacoits
continued to fire on both sides of the train and to warn the
40 passengers not to come out of their carriages, telling them they
were not going to loot them and that they only wanted the rail-
way treasure. There was an interval while the Dehra Express
passed, firing being stopped and the dacoits all assembling on
the other side of the train. It took about half an hour for
the dacoits to force open the safe. They then asked the guard
if that was all. He replied that it was, although in fact there
were three other safes in the other part of the brake van. The

( 76 )
main body of the dacoits then made off, leaving four of their
number with the guard and telling them to come when they
heard a whistle. After a short time a whistle was heard and the
four men departed. after telling the guard not to get up until
they had gone some way. He got up as soon as he was satisfied
that it was safe to do so and examined the condition of the brake
van. All the lamps had been broken and the safe had been
removed. A chadar (sheet Ex. XIV) was lying in the brake
van. He then went along the train and arranged for it to go
on. He sat in a second class compartment with Dr. Gupta. 1
O. P. 118. As the train started he noticed a dead body by the line. He
stopped the train again with the intention of picking it up but
could get no one to help him. The train therefore proceeded
and arrived at Alamnagar where he informed the assistant station
master, Babu Sital Prasad, of the dacoity and also reported it by
telephone to the Controller at Lucknow. On arriving at Lucknow,
he was met by the station master and railway police.
84. Dr. Gupta (P. W. 25) had gone earlier in the day from
Story of Dr. Gupta. Lucknow to Balamau and was returning to
Lucknow by the 8 down train. He was 20
travelling in a second class carriage, being up to Kakori the only
occupant. He got out at Kakori and met the station master on the
platform who asked him for some medicine for his child who was
ill. Dr. Gupta went back to the carriage to get the medicine and
found that three men were then sitting in it on the seat opposite
his. He obtained the medicine and got out of the carriage again,
gave it to the station master and then resumed his seat. The three
men were dressed in khaki shirts, shorts and stockings. One was
wearing a dark safa and the other two had felt caps. The man
with the safa had a bundle about a foot square. Dr. Gupta has 30
identified Ashfaqullah as this man. He also identified R. N.
Lahiri, accused in the main case, as one of the other two men. He
was also apparently inclined to think at the identification proceed-
ings that Bakshi was the third man as he hesitated in front of him.
He did not, however, pick him out. In his statement to the
magistrate which has been brought on record, (Ex. P. B. 36) he said
in cross examination with reference to Bakshi 'I cannot say whether
O. P. 119. this accused was one of the three but I can say this much that he
was just like this accused' and immediately afterwards in re-exami-
nation he said 'whatever I have just said is based upon the hazy idea
that I have about the third man, specially as regards the colour the
the height and general features'. The train had gone about a mile
and a half from Kakori when Lahiri first pulled the communication
chain on the side he was sitting and then came across and pulled
the chain on Dr. Gupta's side. The third man whom he did not
identify also pulled the chain on his side. Dr. Gupta asked them
why they had pulled the chain and they said they had left behind
a box at Kakori. When the train stopped they got down and went

( 77 )
towards the brake van. Dr. Gupta also got out and followed them.
When he saw the guard coming from his brake van he shouted
that these three men had pulled the chain and as his voice was not
very loud he told the ice vendor Abdul Wadud, who had also got
out, to tell the guard also. After going a short distance behind the
men he returned to his carriage. From there he saw that the guard
had met the three men and had gone with them to the brake van
and that there was a gathering of men there. Firing then com-
menced and as soon as he realised that a dacoity was in progress
10 he got back into his carriage, changing later on into another
compartment as he thought that it was dangerous for him to remain
in the same one, the reason being that the three men knew that
he must have had a good view of them and might have come back
to kill him.
85. Abdul Wadud, ice vendor, was in a compartment adjoin-
ing that of Dr. Gupta. He got out at Kakori
[Story of the ice vendor.] and passed up and down the carriages selling
ice and lemonade. While passing his compart-
ment and also on returning to it just before the train started he O. P. 120.
20 saw that three men were sitting in Dr. Gupta's carriage who had
not previously been there. He has identified the two accused in
this case as two of these men. He got out when the train stopped
and followed the three men as far as the officer's saloon. He saw
seven men get out of the third class carriage near the saloon.
They went to the brake van and joined other men there and the
three men from the second class carriage joined the whole party.
Ashfaqullah took a pistol out of the bag which he was carrying and
fired first of all in the air. After hearing them tell the guard to
lie down and seeing the safe thrown out he ran back to his compart-
30 ment.
86. The evidence of Babu Sukhnandan Lal (P. W. 15) station
[Evidence of the Kakori station master.] master of Kakori, supports that of Dr. Gupta.
He states that while Dr. Gupta was getting the
medicine for him he noticed three men sitting
on the other side of the carriage, dressed in khaki. One of them
was facing him and the other was looking through the window on
the other side of the carriage. The witness identified Ashfaqullah
as the man who was facing him. He was sent to various jails for
identification purposes but could identify only Ashfaqullah.
40 87. The evidence of these witnesses has been attacked mainly
[Defence arguments.] on the following grounds:—
(i) It was not light enough at the time of the dacoity for
them to distinguish the features of the dacoits.
(ii) The train did not stop long enough at Kakori for the ice
vendor to have a good view of Ashfaqullah and Bakshi there, espe-
cially as according to Babu Sukhnandan Lal two of the three men

( 78 )

O. P. 121. were l. oking out of the window the other side of the carriage, that
is, they had their backs to the platform.
(iii) The mistakes made by Abdul Wadud in identification.
(iv) The mistakes made by the guard in identification.
(v) The long grass by the side of the line would have im-
peded the view of the witnesses.
(vi) The guard Jagannath Prasad must have known Ashfaq-
ullah before as they had both been at the Mission School, Shah-
jahanpur. Moreover Ashfaqullah was often at the Shahjahanpur
railway station. 10
(vii) As Dr. Gupta had only a pass for an inter class compart-
ment it is improbable that he was in a second class carriage.
I take these arguments in the order given.
(i) It is admitted that the carriages were lighted at the time
of the dacoity but it is submitted that the light from the carriages
would not be sufficiently bright to show up people walking along-
side and that there was little or no daylight left. The register
Ex. P. 80, produced by Babu Ali Murad, assistant station master,
Kakori, shows that the 8 down train arrived at 7-17 p. m. and left
at 7-19 p. m. He says that his lantern had not been lighted when 20
the train arrived at Kakori. The evidence of the other witnesses
is to the effect that there was still some daylight left. Dr. Gupta
says that there were some clouds about but not enough to have any
effect on the light. The guard says there were no clouds when the
train stopped but there were when it started again. Abdul Wadud
says that the sun had set at the time of the dacoity but there was
O. P. 122. still some daylight. Mirza Ahmad Shah (P. W. 7) who was travell-
ing by the train says there was a little daylight left when the
dacoity occurred. Babu Sital Prasad (P. W. 16) assistant station
master, Alamnagar, says that 'the sun was setting when the 8 down 30
train arrived at my station in those days' i. e. on normal days. So
too Baiju (P. W. 17). From this evidence I conclude that there was
sufficient daylight at the beginning of the dacoity for the witnesses
to distinguish the dacoits they were near to, taking into considera-
tion also the fact that there must have been some light from the
carriages.
(ii) It is true that according to the assistant station master's
register the train only stopped two minutes at Kakori. The prose-
cution have argued that such entries are made every day as a
matter of course and cannot be absolutely depended upon. Wheth- 40
er this is so or not I see no reason to think that there was not time
for the ice vendor, Abdul Wadud, to have a casual glance at the
men in the second class carriage. The fact that two of them were
looking out of the opposite window when Babu Sukhnandan looked

( 79 )
in the carriage proves nothing unless Abdul Wadud was looking
in at the same time. Abdul Wadud's attention was specially
directed to the men afterwards by Dr. Gupta when the chain was
pulled so that the question whether he observed them very closely
at the Kakori Station is not very important.
(iii) Abdul Wadud identified twelve men altogether, the
two accused in this case, Ram Prasad, Prem Kishan Khanna, M. N.
Gupta and R. K Sinha of 'those accused in the maincase; Damodar
Sarup who has been too ill to stand his trial; one man who was dis- O. P. 123.
10 charged and four men who are not alleged by the prosecution to
have taken part in the dacoity. Four mistakes may suggest that he
is not such a reliable witness as for instance, Dr. Gupta, but the per-
centage is not so large as to make his evidence and his identification
of the present accused altogether untrustworthy. The reason for
his identifying more accused than the other witnesses appears to be
partly that he had a better opportunity of seeing them and partly
that being an uneducated man he is less careful to identify only
those about whom he is certain. According to his evidence seven men
got out of a third class carriage and looked towards the engine. As
20 he was coming towards them he must have had a good opportunity of
seeing most of these. In the identification proceedings Ex. P. A 50
it is noted that Ashfaq ullah stated that he had seen this witness
at the Shahjahanpur railway station and that he had once slapped
him in the face because he had given him too little ice. As, how-
ever, the witness was never questioned about this story and there
is no evidence to support it I cannot attach any credence to it.
(iv) Jagannath Prasad identified, in addition to Ashfaqullah,
Mukandi Lal and two wrong persons. If the number of persons
paraded be taken into account I do not think that two mistakes
30 make his identification of Ashfaqu'lah and Mukandi Lal worthless,
although they do indicate that he is not such a careful witness as
Dr. Gupta, who identified Ashfaqullah and Lahiri and refused to
identify Bakshi although he was clearly doubtful about him.
(v) The witnesses have admitted that there was long grass by O. P. 124.
the side of the line and from this the defence have assumed that
the path by the side of the line, through which the accused and
witnesses walked towards the brake van, ran through this grass.
There does not appear to be any foundation for this suggestion.
I have no doubt that there was plenty of room for the witnesses
40 to walk along side the train without going into the grass.
(vi) Jagannath Prasad says that he was at the Mission
School, Shahjahanpur, and it is proved that Ashfaqullah was also
at this school. Jagannath Prasad, however, says that he does not
know whether Ashfaqullah was there at the same time as himself.
He left in 1916 and did not regularly take part in games (as Ashfaq-
ullah did). If they were at this school together at the same time

( 80 )
it would seem probable that they would know each other, at least
by sight, but the evidence does not prove conclusively that they
were there at the same time. Jagannath Prasad also attended
a Tahsili school at Shahjahanpur. He is three years younger
than Ashfaqullah. If he really was acquainted with Ashfaqullah
there appears to be no reason why he should not admit it.
(vii) Dr. Gupta says that although he had only a railway
pass for an inter class compartment he always used to travel
second class. In cross-examination he said 'I still travel some
times second class, sometimes in third and sometimes inter. 10
If the ticket collector demanded it from me, I should have to
pay the difference if I travelled second with an inter class pass.
O. P. 125. I travel second class when I am travelling privately'. Dr. Gupta
is a railway official and railway officials, when travelling by rail
are privileged persons. I see no reason to think that he was not
travelling in a second class compartment. Whether his doing so
would be approved by the railway authorities is another question.
In addition to the above arguments I have been referred to
various discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. None of them
appear to me to be of such importance as to require detailed ex- 20
amination. They are all such as one would naturally expect to
find in a case of this kind when witnesses try to remember after-
wards the order in which they saw or heard things at a time when
they were probably in a state of considerable trepidation. I have
no doubt that the dacoity took place substantially as narrated by
the witnesses.

( 95 ) CHAPTER VII. O. P. 148.
*Statement and defence of Ashfaqullah Khan.* 103. In his statement to the committing magistrate (Ex.
*Statement to committing* P. A. 56) Ashfaqullah denied all the charges 312 magistrate. against him. He stated that he knew Ram
Prasad, Hargobind, Prem Kishan, Banarsi Lal and Indu Bhushan just as he knew other residents of Shah-
jahanpur. He denied all knowledge of the White and Yellow leaflets and reserved his statement about the prosecution witnes-
10 ses and his identification by many of them for this court. He did not admit any connection with the letters and papers found
in his possession at the time of his arrest or with the letters Ex. P. 14, 15 and 16 purporting to have been sent by him to
Banarsi Lal, but stated that he would make a statement about them in the court of Session. He admitted that he disappeared
after the 26th September 1925 for fear of the police, as he came to know there was a warrant out against him. He denied that
he had stayed at the Royal Hotel, Delhi, on the 25th and 26th, August, 1926, and that the signature "Murari Mohan" in the
20 hotel register was his. He admitted that he signed the search list Ex. P. A. 32 in the name of Abid Raza Khan and explained
that he did so for fun (tafrihan). He finally alleged that his identi- fication by the witnesses was due to the fact that his photograph
had been in the possession of the police and that at the identifica- tion parade the Public Prosecutor, M. Khairat Nabi, would not let
him speak or raise objections. This latter allegation is proved to be false by the evidence of the committing magistrate, Khan O. P. 149.
Bahadur Saiyid Ainuddin who conducted the proceedings (P. W. 117) and by the record of those proceedings, (Ex. P. A. 50) which
30 shows that he was asked in respect of each identification whether he had any objection to urge.
104. In this court Ashfaqullah has further elaborated his objections in respect of the identification pro-
*Statement in Sessions* ceedings. He states that after his arrest in Court. Delhi his face was uncovered on numerous
occasions: a photograph found in his trunk was not sealed up for some days in spite of his request to the magistrate that it should
be; the C. I. D. Inspector Mr. Gobind Bihari had an opportunity of thoroughly examining his features and described him to the
40 identifying witnesses and there were numerous differences between him and the five men paraded with him. He denies that
there has been any friendship between him and Banarsi Lal during the last two or three years, explaining that he severed all connec-
tion both with him and with Ram Prasad as a result of the commu- nal riots in Shahjahanpur in 1924 and also because Banarsi Lal
had appropriated some European cloth which had been given up for burning. He admits that the manuscript papers found in his trunk

( 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.

( 97 )
106. Five witnesses were examined by the defence on three
Bamrauli alibi. different dates to prove that on Christmas
Day, 1924, the date of the Bamrauli dacoity,
Ashfaqullah was a member of a "shikar" party near the village in
the Shahjahanpur district where his family own some land. Sami-
ullah Khan (D. W. 19) alias Kallan Khan, who is closely connected
with the family, being the brother-in-law of Safiullah Khan,
Ashfaqullah's elder brother, states that a few days before Christ-
mas Day, 1924 he had come to Shahjahanpur to buy cloth. He
10 met Safiullah Khan on the 23rd December and Safiullah Khan
suggested that they should travel back to his railway station,
Katra, on Christmas Day together. He accordingly did so. With
Safiullah were Ashfaqullah and one Liaqatullah. On arriving at
Katra Station, Safiullah asked him to join his shikar party and on
being pressed he did so, going with them to the village of Nawa-
dia where the property of Ashfaqullah's family is situated.
Safiullah Khan sent word to one Nawab Shakir Ali Khan, suggest- O. P. 152.
ing that the party should come the next day to his village for
"shikar" and in reply the Nawab asked them to come the next day
20 and take food with him. They arrived at his village, Khitawa, the
next morning about 7-30, caught quail in nets till about 11 and
arrived home about 2 p. m. This story is corroborated by Safi-
ullah Khan (D. W. 21), Liaqatullah Khan (D. W. 14), Shakir Ali
Khan (D. W. 3) and Ashiq Ali Khan (D. W. 20). Safiullah Khan
agrees that the date on which the party went was Christmas Day,
1924, after first of all saying it was in 1925. There are some
rather serious discrepancies between his evidence and that of
Kallan Khan, namely as to when they asked Samiullah Khan to
join the shikar party, whether he agreed to go at once, how the
30 party obtained their food, what Samiullah Khan did at Katra
station with the cloth he had bought at Shahjahanpur and why
Ashfaqullah was able to go with them at Christmas. Liaqatullah
Khan is a student at the Islamia College, Lahore, who visits his
home at Shahjahanpur during the vacations. There is nothing in
particular to note about his evidence except that he was not cer-
tain on what date he arrived at Shahjahanpur from Lahore. He
has been acquainted with Ashfaqullah since they were both stu-
dents at Shahjahanpur. He also gives the date when the party
left Shahjahanpur as 25th December. He admits that he is des-
40 cended from the same ancestors as Ashfaqullah. Shakir Ali Khan
is very vague as to the date, saying it was during the Christmas
holidays, between the 24th December and the 2nd January 1925.
He would not commit himself to a more definite date. Ashiq Ali
Khan is a youth of 20, who, there is some reason to think, was
privy to the conspiracy. He is mentioned by Indu Bhushan as an
associate of Ashfaqullah and a letter from Ashfaqullah to him was
found on Ashfaqullah at the time of his arrest (Ex. P. A. 4). He O. P. 153.
is also called "Arfi" and it was thus that Ashfaqullah addressed
him in the letter referred to. He states that he was seeing some

relatives off at Shahjahanpur railway station on Christmas Day, 1924,
and saw the "shikar" party then. He was very clearly a partial
witness as he would not admit that certain letters shown to him
were in Ashfaqullah's handwriting although he admitted that he
had received letters from Ashfaqullah and the letters shown him
had been admittedly written by Ashfaqullah. He admitted that
he had been convicted under the Arms Act in 1925 for having two
pistols without a license. Altogether he appeared to be a very un-
reliable witness. My general impression from the evidence of
these five witnesses is that although there may be some slight 10
foundation for the "shikar" story, the statement that the party
including Ashfaqullah, left Shahjahanpur on the 25th December,
1925, cannot be relied upon.
107. Seven witnesses were produced by the defence on
Bichpuri alibi. four different days to prove that on the
9th March 1925, the date of the Bichpuri
dacoity, Ashfaqullah took part in the ceremony of "Milad
Sharif" at the house of Anwar Husain Khan (D. W. 1). The
witnesses do not give the English date but give the corres-
ponding Muhammadan date, namely the 13th of Shaban, or 20
fix the date with reference to the Shab-i-barat festival which
fell on the 14th of Shaban in 1925. Anwar Husain Khan is
a connection of Ashfaqullah's family, his cousin (one witness says
his sister) being married to Riyasatullah Khan, brother of Ashfaq-
ullah. He states that he had celebrated the Milad regularly on
the 13th Shaban, for the last eight years, this date being fixed for
O. P. 154. it as the month of Shaban is propitious, and convenient for him as
his profits from his sugar factory have come in by then. Ashfaq-
ullah did not attend the Milad in 1926 or 1927 but did so in 1925,
when he assisted the witness in spreading the carpets and distri- 30
buting sweets and pan. Only members of Ashfaqullah's family
assisted him in the Milad, as it was the custom for only relatives
to do so. The story is repeated by Saiyid Ali Ahmad (D. W. 2), a
mukhtar on Rs. 15 a month of an honorary magistrate who is also
said to have attended the Milad in question but who has not ap-
peared as a witness to say so; and by Mashuqullah Khan (D. W.
5), a zamindar who first of all said that it was in 1925 that Safi-
ullah Khan asked that prayers might be offered for Ashfaqullah on
account of the case pending against him, Ashfaqullah himself not
being present on that occasion. Subsequently he said that Ashfaq- 40
ullah was absent for the last two Milads but he did not remember
whether the last Milad was in 1927, though he knew that the
present year is 1927. The house of this witness adjoins that of
Ashfaqullah. As regards the evidence of Inayatullah Khan (D.
W. 6), a zamindar whose antecedents do not appear to have been
altogether above suspicion; of Abdul Fateh Khan (D. W. 17), a
fairly large zamindar, a friend of the family and of the same
"biradari"; of Amjad Ali Khan (D. W. 18), a clerk in the Shahjahan-
pur Municipal office; and of Safiullah Khan, Ashfaqullah's brother,

( 99 )
all of whom repeat the story, there is nothing in particular to note.
There are small discrepancies in their evidence but not such as by
themselves would excite suspicion. The counsel for the Crown has
pointed to the inability of some of these witnesses to give details
about the manner in which the Milad was celebrated in other
years or at other peoples' houses, but on this too I do not lay much
stress. More significant appear to be the admissions that none of
the witnesses knows of any other family in Shahjahanpur which O. P. 155.
holds the Milad at this time and that there is at least one month
more auspicious than Shaban for the purpose. The prosecution
argue with some force that if a definite date were fixed for the
Milad every year it would naturally be fixed at the most auspicious
time. They also point out—and this is possibly the greatest weak-
ness in the defence story—that as the Muhammadan year is shorter
by ten days than the English year, after eight years Anwar
Husain Khan would now be holding Milad at quite a different
season from that in which he held it when he originally fixed the
date, and that the reason he gives for holding it on the 13th Sha-
ban, namely that it suits his pocket as he realises the profits of his
sugar factory about a month before, is not therefore very con-
vincing. It is rather in view of these improbabilities than because
the evidence is on the face of it unreliable that I reject the story.
108. Seven witnesses have been produced to show that
Ashfaqullah was in Bhopal at the time of the
Kakori alibi. Kakori dacoity. His brother, Safiullah Khan,
(D. W. 21) says that in May, 1925, Ashfaqullah
left school for the second time with the intention of taking service
somewhere. He went to Bhopal with this object the last week of
July and returned the third week of August. While he was away
30 the witness received letters from him which he did not keep. They
were to the effect that he had.applied for employment but was
unable to obtain it immediately "as the Begam Sahiba was away
in England": Another brother of Ashfaqullah named Shahan Shah
Khan alias Munnu Khan is employed in the Bhopal State as a
criminal peshkar of the district magistrate, Ashta, and there can
be no doubt that Ashfaqullah visited him from time to time.
Safiullah Khan says that Ashfaqullah went to Bhopal for some
time, after discontinuing his studies on account of the non-co-
operation movement. He stayed there once for several months in
40 1923. The correspondence found with Ashfaqullah at the time of
his arrest shows that he was in Bhopal part of the time that he was
absconding.
It should be noted that his brother Shahan Shah Khan has not
appeared to support his alibi.

( 100 )
of Ashta where Shahan Shah Khan is employed. Colonel Inamullah
Khan says that Ashfaqullah came to him and asked for a post in
the army. The witness replied that Her Highness and her son
were in Bangalore (not England) and that no final reply could be
given at the moment. As regards the date when this application
was made the witness'said; "It was in 1925. I am not sure of the
month; it was either July or August. I think it was either the end
of July or the beginning of August. I do not know the date and
as I have already said I am not sure about the month. It was the
rainy season. I had not seen him before nor did I see him after". 10
The witness also said that Ashfaqullah's application for employ-
ment was not kept. Clearly this evidence is not very helpful to
the defence.
110. The other witnesses, Majid Ali Khan, (D. W. 23) Inayat
Other witnesses. Khan (D. W. 24), Bhagwat Singh (D. W. 25),
Ahsan Ali (D. W. 26) and Muhammad
Ishaq (D. W. 27) all appear to be friends of Shahan Shah Khan.
Majid Ali Khan is a kanungo at Ashta. He says that he saw
Ashfaqullah there in 1923 and again in 1925. In the latter year he
first saw him towards the end of July. "He left Ashta five or six 20
days after the Muharram (1st August). He came back again two
days later and stayed eight or ten days at Ashta." He under-
stood that he had been to Bhopal to obtain a post in the army.
He can give no reason for remembering the date. Inayat Khan
is a clerk. He states that he saw Ashfaqullah eight or ten days
after the Muharram at Sihor in the Bhopal State. Ashfaqullah
was in a motor bus or lorry on his way back from Bhopal. The
witness spoke to him and Ashfaqullah told him that he had been
to Bhopal in search of employment. Though he thought the date
was eight or ten days after the Muharram the witness admitted 30
that it might have been only four or six days after or as many as
twelve or fifteen. He says that some other men in the motor
lorry, including Bhagwat Singh the next witness, were sitting in
front of Ashfaqullah. This witness says that he went from Sihor
to Ashta in the same motor lorry as Ashfaqullah and that the
date was the Hindi date corresponding to the 8th August.
He was in the main portion of the lorry while Ashfaqullah was
sitting in front with the driver. Ashfaqullah did not come into the
main portion at all. This does not agree with the evidence of
Inayat Khan. Ahsan Ali is a dismissed police official and at 40
present manager of a motor company. He was dismissed in
connection with the disappearance of some papers and was in the
Ashta lock-up in this connection for two months before being
acquitted. While he was in the lock-up his uncle came and told
him that his grandmother had died and that he should obtain the
permission of the district magistrate to join in the funeral cere-
mony. The jail dafadar then took him out of the lock-up to the
district magistrate but the latter refused to let him go. With the

( 101 )
district magistrate were Shahan Shah Khan and his brother
Ashfaqullah Khan. The date was the 18th of the month of Muhar-
ram (8th August). Muhammad Ishaq, a vakil whose appearance (O. P. 158.)
hardly supported his statement that he made as much as Rs. 400
a month, stated that he attended the funeral ceremony of the
grandmother of the last witness. As regards the date he said
"I don't remember the date. It was after the Muharram. I am
not sure but I think it was the 7th or 8th day after the Muharram
(i. e. 7th or 8th August). He had come to the office of the
10 district magistrate to request his permission to appear late in court
on account of the funeral. He was there about 10 a. m. and saw
both Shahan Shah Khan and Ashfaqullah coming out of the district
magistrate's office. Questioned as to how he remembered the date
he said: "On seeing the accused in court I remembered that I had
seen him about eight days after the Muharram". He was unable
to give any information about the cases in which he had to appear
that day before the district magistrate. The evidence of none of
these witnesses inspired confidence, especially as regards the date.
It is possible, indeed likely, that they saw Ashfaqullah on one or
20 more of his visits to the Bhopal State, but I cannot accept their
evidence as proving that they saw him there on the 7th, 8th or
9th August 1925.
111. A number of witnesses have been called by the defence
[Side note: Alleged antagonism between Ashfaqullah and Ram Prasad.] to prove that Ashfaqullah and Ram Prasad
were on opposite sides during the Shahjahanpur
riots of 1924, the suggestion being that men
who were opposed to each other during
these communal riots could not possibly have been, either at the
time or afterwards, closely connected in a revolutionary conspiracy.
30 Raza Ali Khan, a vakil (D. W. 4) says that Ashfaqullah did
"pairawi" for one Ata Husain, and that Ram Prasad did "pairawi" (O. P. 159.)
for the Hindus but cannot give any details of the case or cases in
which Ram Prasad did "pairawi". He only concluded that Ashfaq-
ullah was doing "pairawi" for Ata. Husain because he saw them
together on several occasions. Muhammad Shafiqullah Khan
(D. W. 7) says he spoke to Ashfaqullah about the time of the riots
and Ashfaqullah complained that persons who posed as national-
ists were taking part in communal quarrels. After being asked
several times whether Ashfaqullah mentioned any names the wit-
40 ness said that he mentioned the name of Ram Prasad. The manner
in which this witness after much hesitation made this statement
did not impress me with his reliability. Karim-ul-Raza Khan
(D. W. 8) a vakil who suspended practice during the non-co-ope-
ration movement and who appeared as counsel for Ata Husain
referred to above, says that Ashfaqullah did "pairawi" for
Ata Husain. His only reason for saying so, however, was
that Ashfaqullah used to accompany Ata Husain to his house.