|
Statement
Before
the
Lahore
High
Court
Bench*
[Through
this
brilliant
statement
Bhagat
Singh
demolished
the
basis
of
the
Sessions
Court
judgement
and
emphasised
the
importance
of
motive.
The
motive
of
action,
he
argued,
should
be
the
main
consideration
while
judging
the
offence
of an
accused.]
MY
LORDS,
We
are
neither
lawyers
nor
masters
of
English
language,
nor
holders
of
degrees.
Therefore,
please
do
not
expect
any
oratorial
speech
from
us.
We
therefore
pray
that
instead
of
going
into
the
language
mistakes
of
our
statement
Your
Lordships
will
try
to
understand
the
real
sense
of
it.
Leaving
other
points
to
our
lawyers,
I
will
confine
myself
to
one
point
only.
The
point
is
very
important
in
this
case.
The
point
is as
to
what
were
our
intentions
sand
to
what
extent
we
are
guilty.
This
is a
very
complicated
question
and
no
one
will
be
able
to
express
before
you
that
height
to
mental
elevation
which
inspired
us to
think
and
act
in a
particular
manner.
We
want
that
this
should
be
kept
in
mind
while
assessing
our
intentions
our
offence.
According
to
the
famous
jurist
Solomon,
one
should
not
be
punished
for
his
criminal
offence
if
his
aim
is
not
against
law.
We
had
submitted
a
written
statement
in
the
Sessions
Court.
That
statement
explains
our
aim
and,
as
such,
explains
our
intentions
also.
But
the
leaned
judge
dismissed
it
with
one
stroke
of
pen,
saying
that
"generally
the
operation
of
law
is
not
affected
by
how
or
why
one
committed
the
offence.
In
this
country
the
aim
of
the
offence
is
very
rarely
mentioned
in
legal
commentaries."
My
Lords,
our
contention
is
that
under
the
circumstances
the
learned
judge
ought
to
have
judged
us
either
by
the
result
of
our
action
or on
the
basis
of
the
psychological
part
of
our
statement.
But
he
did
not
take
any
of
these
factors
into
consideration.
The
point
to be
considered
is
that
the
two
bombs
we
threw
in
the
Assembly
did
not
harm
anybody
physically
or
economically.
As
such
the
punishment
awarded
to us
is
not
only
very
harsh
but
revengeful
also.
Moreover,
the
motive
knowing
his
psychology.
And
no
one
can
do
justice
to
anybody
without
taking
his
motive
into
consideration.
If we
ignore
the
motive,
the
biggest
general
of
the
words
will
appear
like
ordinary
murderers;
revenue
officers
will
look
like
thieves
and
cheats.
Even
judges
will
be
accused
of
murder.
This
way
the
entire
social
system
and
the
civilisation
will
be
reduced
to
murders,
thefts
and
cheating.
If we
ignore
the
motive,
the
government
will
have
no
right
to
expect
sacrifice
from
its
people
and
its
officials.
Ignore
the
motive
and
every
religious
preacher
will
be
dubbed
as a
preacher
of
falsehoods,
and
every
prophet
will
be
charged
of
misguiding
crores
of
simple
and
ignorant
people.
If
we
set
aside
the
motive,
then
Jessus
Christ
will
appear
to be
a man
responsible
for
creating
disturbances,
breaking
peace
and
preaching
revolt,
and
will
be
considered
to be
a
"dangerous
personality"
in
the
language
of
the
law.
But
we
worship
him.
He
commands
great
respect
in
our
hearts
and
his
image
creates
vibrations
of
spiritualism
amongst
us.
Why?
Because
the
inspiration
behind
his
actions
was
that
of a
high
ideal.
The
rulers
of
that
age
could
not
recognise
that
high
idealism.
They
only
saw
his
outward
actions.
Nineteen
centuaries
have
passed
since
then.
Have
we
not
progressed
during
this
period?
Shall
we
repeat
that
mistake
again?
It
that
be
so,
then
we
shall
have
to
admit
that
all
the
sacrifices
of
the
mankind
and
all
the
efforts
of
the
great
martyrs
were
useless
and
it
would
appear
as if
we
are
still
at
the
same
place
where
we
stood
twenty
centuries
back.
From
the
legal
point
of
view
also,
the
question
of
motive
is of
special
importance.
Take
the
example
of
General
Dyer.
He
resorted
to
firing
and
killed
hundreds
of
innocent
and
unarmed
people.
But
the
military
court
did
not
order
him
to be
shot.
It
gave
him
lakhs
of
rupees
as
award.
Take
another
example.
Shri
Kharag
Bahadur
Singh,
a
young
Gurkha,
Killed
a
Marwari
in
Calcutta.
If
the
motive
be
set
aside,
then
Kharag
Bahadur
Singh
ought
to
have
been
hanged.
But
he
was
awarded
a
mild
sentence
of a
few
years
only.
He
was
even
released
much
before
the
expiry
of
his
sentence.
Was
there
any
loophole
in
the
law
that
he
escaped
capital
punishment?
Or,
was
the
charge
of
murder
not
proved
against
him?
Like
us,
he
also
accepted
the
full
responsibility
of
his
action,
but
he
escaped
death.
He is
free
today.
I ask
Your
Lordship,
why
was
he
not
awarded
capital
punishment?
His
action
was
well
calculated
and
well
planned.
From
the
motive
end,
his
action
was
more
serious
and
fatal
than
ours.
He
was
awarded
a
mild
punishment
because
his
intentions
were
good.
He
was
awarded
a
mild
punishment
because
his
intention
were
good.
He
saved
the
society
from
a
dirty
leach
who
had
sucked
the
life-blood
of so
many
pretty
young
girls.
Kharag
Singh
was
given
a
mild
punishment
just
to
uphold
the
formalities
of
the
law.
This
principle
(that
the
law
does
not
take
motive
into
consideration
-
ed.)
is
quite
absurd.
This
is
against
the
basic
principles
of
the
law
which
declares
that
"the
law
is
for
man
and
not
man
for
the
law".
As
such,
why
the
same
norms
are
not
being
applied
to us
also?
It is
quite
clear
that
while
convicting
Kharag
Singh
his
motive
was
kept
in
mind,
otherwise
a
murderer
can
never
escape
the
hangman's
noose.
Are
we
being
deprived
of
the
ordinary
advantage
of
the
law
because
our
offence
is
against
the
government,
or
because
our
action
has a
political
importance?
Next
|
