REPORT

OF
GUMNAMI BABA
@ BHAGWANJI

INQUIRY COMMISSION
BY
JUSTICE VISHNU SAHAI
 REPORT
OF
GUMNAMI BABA @ BHAGWANJI

INQUIRY COMMISSION
BY
JUSTICE VISHNU SAHAI
 Preface

In reference to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad the

Government of Uttar Pradesh had constituted a one-member Hon’ble
Justice Shri Vishnu Sahai Commission for ascertaining the actual
identity of Gumnami Baba Upakhya Bhagwanji and inquiring the facts
associated with him. The Commission was constituted vide Home
Department notification number-1720kha/chhah-pu-4-16-20(Writ)/
2002 dated 28th June, 2016.
Using the power granted under Section 3 of the Commission of
Inquiry Act, 1952, the Hon’ble Justice Shri Vishnu Sahai Commission
constituted by the Hon’ble Governor presented its inquiry report to the
State Government. While accepting the inquiry report, the Hon’ble
Council of Ministers approved its presentation before the State
Legislature.
The copies of the report are submitted in the State Legislature in
both Hindi and English. The original report of Hon’ble Justice Shri
Vishnu Sahai Commission is in English. Thus, the inquiry report has
been translated into Hindi. For the Hindi version, we are thankful to the
Principal Secretary, Language Department Shri Jitendra Kumar and his
team.
The people have always been curious to know about the actual
identity of Gumnami Baba Upakhya Bhagwanji. I had myself sensed the
curiosity of the residents during my posting as the District Magistrate of
the then district Faizabad (now Ayodhya). Along with the people, even I
was also curious to know about the identity of Gumnami Baba Upakhya
Bhagwanji.
Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, the inquiry report of
Hon’ble Justice Shri Vishnu Sahai Commission is being submitted to be
presented before the State Legislature.

(Awanish Kumar Awasthi)

Additional Chief Secretary,
Deptt. Of Home, Gopan, Passport, Visa,
Vigilance, Jail, Information & Religious Affairs,
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
 REPORT
OF
GUMNAMI BABA @ BHAGWANJI
INQUIRY COMMISSION
BY JUSTICE VISHNU SAHAI
CONTENTS

1 Part I – Introduction…………………………………...... 1-7

2 Part II–Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Writ

Petition Nos. Misc. Bench 929 of 1986 and 10877 of
2010………………………………………………….….. 8-18

3 Part III– Evidence of Witnesses……………………....… 19-128

4 Part IV–Classification of Evidence of Witnesses for

determining the identity of Gumnami Baba @
Bhagwanji……………………………………………. 129-131

5 Part V–Evidence of Recovery of Articles from that

portion of the premises of Ram Bhawan, Civil Lines,
Faizabad in which Gumnami Baba @ Bhagwanji lived
from about December, 1982 till his death i.e. on
16.9.1985………………………………………………… 132-141

6 Part VI–Conclusion………………………………….…... 142-144

7 Acknowledgements…………………………..……….…. 145
 REPORT OF GUMNAMI BABA @ BHAGWANJI INQUIRY
COMMISSION BY JUSTICE VISHNU SAHAI

Part-I
Introduction
(1) A writ petition (Writ Petition No.Misc.Bench No.929of 1986:Miss
Lalita Bose and others v.State of U.P.and others) was filed by Miss Lalita
Bose and others in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in 1986
praying,inter alia, that appropriate inquiry be conducted with regard to
Gumnami Baba@ Bhagwanji,who resided in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad and
was cremated at Guptar Ghat,Ayodhya on 18th September,1985. It was
further prayed that an inventory be prepared by an Advocate Commissioner
of the goods of Gumnami Baba lying in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad and they
should not be auctioned. It was claimed in the writ petition that Gumnami
Baba @ Bhagwanji was in fact Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Miss Lalita
Bose is daughter of late Suresh Chandra Bose, who happened to be the
brother of late Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Another Writ Petition was filed in the year 2010 being MISC.BENCH
NO.10877 OF 2010:Subhash Chandra Bose Rashtriya Vichar Kendra v.
State of U.P.and others with the prayer that articles/goods left by Gumnami
Baba at Ram Bhawan, Faizabad which are locked in Treasury of Faizabad
be photographed and certain articles taken by the Mukherjee Commission
should be brought back to State of U.P.and the entire goods may be kept in
National Museum or be handed over to the petitioner Society, which was
registered in the year 1984.
Both the aforesaid writ petitions were connected and decided together
by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 31st January,2013
with the following order:
"Subject to the aforesaid observation, both the writ petitions deserve
to be allowed and are hereby allowed.
(A) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the respondent State
of U.P. to consider for establishment of museum at Faizabad /Ayodhya
managed by curator wherein the articles of late Gumnami Baba alias
[1]
Bhagwan Ji as well as other ancient items may be kept scientifically, under
the supervision of a qualified person(curator).
(B) A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the State
Government as well as Government of India to repossess all the items of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwan Ji taken by Mukherjee Commission (supra)
and submit it to the Treasury of Faizabad, who in turn, transfer the items in
the museum established at appropriate place notified by the State
Government. Let a decision be taken by the Government, keeping in view the
observation made hereinabove, expeditiously, say within a period of three
months with regard to creation of museum at appropriate place.
(C) The Government of U.P. is further directed to consider for
appointment of a committee consisting of a team of experts and higher
officers, headed by a Retired Judge of High Court, to hold an enquiry with
regard to the identity of late Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwan Ji who resided
in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad and cremated on 18.09.1985 (supra). Let a
decision be taken expeditiously, say within a period of three months.
The records of both the writ petitions which contains reports and
other materials shall be kept in sealed cover and shall be opened only on the
order of the court by the Registry. The photographs and video recording
shall be returned back to the Treasury officer, Faizabad which shall be kept
by him in sealed cover for transfer to museum(supra).
The respondents shall submit a compliance report, i.e. the decision
taken in pursuance to the present judgment within four months and the
Registry shall list the petition after four months for perusal of the decision
taken by the Government.
Registry shall send a copy of the present judgment to the Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P. for compliance within two weeks.
The writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs."
(2) Keeping in view the claim of the petitioners in the aforesaid two
writ petitions and the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble the
Governor of Uttar Pradesh was of the opinion that it was necessary to hold
an inquiry in the matter of public importance, that is, identity of Gumnami
Baba @ Bhagwanji, who resided in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad, and

[2]
wascremated on 18.09.1985 and vide notification dated 28th
June,2016,constituted a Single Member Judicial Commission of Inquiry,
under the Commission of Inquiry Act,1952 comprising of me [Justice
Vishnu Sahai (Retd.),Judge, Allahabad High Court] to make an inquiry
about the identity of late Gumnami Baba @ Bhagwanji.
A perusal of the notification shows that the Headquarters of the
Commission were to be in Lucknow and the Camp Office at Faizabad.
I, Justice Vishnu Sahai (Retd.) took charge as the One Man Inquiry
Commission on 4th July,2016.
On my recommendation, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, appointed
Mr.Dileep Kumar, HJS (Retired District Judge,Chandauli) as Secretary of
the Commission, vide its order dated 11th July,2016 and Mr.Dileep Kumar
took charge as Secretary of the Commission on 13th July,2016.
(3) REGULATIONS FRAMED BY THE COMMISSION
In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the
Commission of Inquiry State Rules,1985 the Commission framed
regulations to regulate its procedure to conduct the inquiry. The said
regulations read as under:
3.1. The proceedings will be conducted in Hindi/English.
3.2. The Headquarters of the Commission shall be at Bungalow No.
C-104, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow.
3.3. The office of the Commission shall be open from 9.30 a.m. to
5.30 p.m. with a recess between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. on all week days,
except Saturday, Sunday and Government holidays.
3.4. The Commission will ordinarily hold its sitting at Bungalow No.
C-104, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow but depending upon the number and nature
of witnesses and with a view to avoid inconvenience to the witnesses and
other associated persons, its sitting may be held at Camp Office at Faizabad
or at any other place, as the Commission may think necessary. The dates,
timings and venue of the sittings of the Commission will be notified from
time to time.
3.5. The hearings of the Commission will be open to the public except
when the Commission thinks fit to direct that the proceedings in respect of a
particular person/persons shall be held in camera.

[3]
 3.6. The Commission may require persons, who in its opinion have
knowledge of facts relevant to matters under inquiry to file before the
Commission statement of facts or affidavits. An affidavit filed before the
Commission shall be sworn before an authority legally empowered to
administer oath. Such statement of facts or affidavits may be sent to the
Secretary of the Commission by registered post acknowledgement due or
handed over at the office of the Commission during office hours to an
officer duly authorized to receive them and grant a receipt.
3.7. The authority before whom the affidavit is sworn, shall make the
following endorsement thereon:
"Sworn before me by the deponent, who has been identified to
my satisfaction by ………… or is personally known to me. The
affidavit has been read out in full to the deponent who has signed it in
my presence after admitting it to be correct this day of ……………..,
at ……………
Signature of the Authority"
3.8. Every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person and shall be
divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively; each material statement of
fact being made the subject matter of a separate paragraph. The affidavit
shall state the description, occupation, if any, and the ordinary place of
residence of the deponent.
3.9. (a) The affidavit, at the end, shall be verified in the following
manner:
"I declare that the statement/averment made in paragraphs………
of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and those in
paragraphs………… are from information received and believed by
me to be true."
(b) If information is derived from any document or record, the
deponent shall indicate the nature and particulars of such document
and the person in control and custody thereof.

[4]
 (c) If any part of the affidavit is verified from information
received by the deponent, he shall disclose the source of such
information in the affidavit.
(d) The deponent shall indicate briefly, the facts, which the
witness is expected to speak about if examined before the
Commission.
3.10. If the deponent/witness relies on the whole or any part of his
version of any document, such document in original, or a duly certified copy
thereof, shall be filed alongwith the affidavit. If the original document is not
in his/her possession, power or control, he/she shall disclose the identity of
the person who has custody thereof. If the document is part of an official
record, the witness shall indicate the department of the Government or the
officer having custody or control of such document.
3.11. The Commission may, if it considers necessary in the interest of
justice, call upon any person filing an affidavit or a statement of fact to give
oral evidence before the Commission. In such cases, the affidavit or the
statement of facts already filed by the person or a part thereof may, at the
discretion of the Commission, be treated as his examination-in-chief.
3.12. If the Commission decides to record oral evidence of any
particular person, the procedure outlined in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of
Rule 5, Commission of Inquiry State Rules,1985 shall be followed. No
person will, however, have a right to insist on oral examination of any
person or deponent of an affidavit. It will be in the discretion of the
Commission to examine viva voce any person or deponent to an affidavit.
3.13. Cross examination of all witnesses, whose evidence is recorded
orally on oath, will be allowed to all parties and persons.
3.14. The Commission may summon any person to make a statement
or give evidence before the Commission. But the Commission shall not be
bound to summon any person merely because Commission is asked by any
person to do so.
3.15. The Commission may in its discretion refuse to call any person
for oral examination or cross-examination and instead allow him to be
examined on affidavit through interrogatories delivered to him.

[5]
 3.16. Official records of Government department or Government
controlled institution, statutory bodies, State Undertakings,Banks and
Cooperative Societies including the office notings, orders etc. may, subject
to any valid claim of privilege be admitted without any formal proof,unless
the Commission in any particular case requires it to be proved in any of the
ways laid down in the Indian Evidence Act.
3.17.Although the technical provisions of the Indian Evidence Act
will not govern or restrict the recording of evidence before the Commission,
the fundamental principles of natural justice underlying the primary
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act shall be followed as a guide.
3.18. Instead of the Commission recording a statement, it may appoint
a person or persons before whom such statement shall be recorded.
3.19.The Secretary to the Commission has been authorised under
Rules 4 (2) and 6 of the Commission of Inquiry State Rules,1985 to sign
summons and every other process issued by the Commission.
3.20.Further regulations, process consistent with the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder, as may be appropriate, will be adopted as and
when occasion for the same arises.
3.21.The Commission may either on its own discretion, or on the
application made by any person or party delete or expunge any matter from
any petition, affidavit, or other document or return any document presented
to the Commission,which in the opinon of the Commission, is
irrelevant,scurrilious or scandlous.
3.22. The Commission reserves its right to alter, modify, delete or add
to, these regulations or procedure at any time during the enquiry as and
when it considers necessary.
3.23. The Rules which are adopted are in conformity with the
principles spelt out by Sir Richard Scott that the "Golden rule is that there
should be procedure flexibility, the procedure to achieve fairness, tailored to
suit the circumstances of each inquiry".
4. The Commission proceeded in accordance with the aforesaid
regulations and notifications were published in Hindi and English in local
[6]
and national newspapers and also in the newspapers published in Bangla
language having circulation in the State of West Bengal, especially in and
around Kolkata, requesting the general public that any person who has
personal or special knowledge about the identity of Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji, who resided in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and was cremated at
Guptar Ghat,Faizabad on 18th September,1985 and desired that facts known
to him should come to the notice of the Commission, may appear before the
Commission in person or send his/her statement on affidavit or may submit
any material in writing or photographs or video clippings to the Commission
at the office/camp office of the Commission within thirty days. In case
he/she is required to be examined on oath, necessary expenses will be borne
by the Commission. The concerned person may also personally contact the
office of the Commission or the Secretary of the Commission.

[7]
 PART II
Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition Nos.Misc. Bench
929 of 1986 and 10877 of 2010
(1) Since Hon'ble Governor in constituting the Commission was
prompted by the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in
the aforesaid writ petitions, it would be appropriate, in short, to deal with it.
I feel it pertinent to point out that the details and facts mentioned in
this part of the Report (set out hereinafter) have been extracted from the
aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
The claim of the petitioners in the said writ petitions was that late
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji,who resided in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and
was cremated at Guptar Ghat, Ayodhya on 18th September,1985 was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. It is said that during his stay at Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad several prominent persons and some relatives of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose used to visit him.
After the death of Gumnami Baba @ Bhagwanji a controversy arose
in Faizabad when a local daily "Nai Log" published a story that the person
known as 'Bhagwanji' who died on 16.09.1985 was, in fact, none other than
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. This controversy continued for long in the
newspapers and some politicians and social organizations approached the
District Magistrate, Faizabad requesting him that circumstances of the death
of Gumnami Baba and all the items which he left behind should be
thoroughly scrutinized so that the controversy about Gumnami Baba
@ Bhagwanji being Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose could be settled.
In the meantime, a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.929(MB) of
1986 was filed by Miss Lalita Bose, real niece of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose(daughter of late Suresh Chandra Bose, who happened to be brother of
late Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose), Dr.M.A.Haleem, Vice President, All
India Socialist Party and Shri Vishwa Bandhav Tewari, Vice President, All
India Subhash Mukti Vahini, praying therein that appropriate inquiry may
be conducted with regard to Gumnami Baba and inventory of the
items/goods left behind by him, which were lying in Ram Bhawan,
Faizabad, be prepared by an Advocate Commissioner and the said items
may not be auctioned.

[8]
 Miss Lalita Bose, petitioner No.1 in the aforesaid writ petition,
claimed that she has the right to property of late Bhagwanji, in case after due
inquiry, it is found that late Gumnami Baba@ Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
On 10.02.1986 an interim order was passed by a Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court directing the District Magistrate, Faizabad that an
inventory of the articles left by the nameless saint at Ram Bhawan Faizabad
shall be got prepared through an Advocate Commissioner, who may be
appointed by the District Magistrate himself or he may get such an
Advocate Commissioner appointed by the District Judge, Faizabad. It was
further directed that after the inventory has been prepared the articles shall
be shifted from Ram Bhawan, Faizabad to the Treasury to be kept in safe
custody under the lock and seal of District Magistrate.
A counter affidavit was filed in the aforesaid writ petition on behalf of
State of U.P.in which the claim of the petitioners that Gumnami Baba
@ Bhagwanji, who resided in Ram Bhawan Faizabad was in fact Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose was denied.
However, it was stated in the counter affidavit that on 16.09.1985 at
about 9.40 pm death occurred of a person who was known to his followers
as 'Bhagwanji'. He had been living in Faizabad City in a house called 'Ram
Bhawan'. It was stated that an inquiry conducted into the background of this
person revealed that he had come from district Basti to Ayodhya in the year
1974 and lived in Ayodhya in a building known as ‘Lakhnauwa Hata’ for
many years and thereafter he shifted to the house of one Sardar Gur Bux
Singh Sondhi at Brahma Kund, Ayodhya. After sometime, Bhagwanji was
brought by Dr. Raghunath Prasad Misra, a retired Surgeon of District
Hospital,Faizabad and was accommodated in a outhouse at Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad.
It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the said Gumnami Baba
@ Bhagwanji never appeared before any person and always kept himself
behind a curtain. In the said enquiry it was also revealed that Gumnami
Baba @ Bhagwanji was close to three persons and they were Dr.Pabitra
Mohan Roy, who was resident of 517 Dum Dum Park, Calcutta,
Dr.Raghunath Prasad Misra and Dr. P.Banerjee, both of Faizabad. It was
further stated in the counter affidavit that in compliance of the order passed
[9]
by the Hon'ble High Court, District Judge,Faizabad appointed
Sri S.N.Singh, Advocate, Faizabad as Advocate Commissioner for preparing
an inventory of all the articles which were kept in the house of Gumnami
Baba @ Bhagwanji. The Advocate Commissioner after giving notice to all
the interested parties prepared an inventory of articles which were found in
the house and kept in sealed boxes. These sealed boxes were kept in double
lock of District Treasury, Faizabad.
It is stated that during search of the house of Gumnami Baba a large
number of belongings and literature associated with 'Indian National Army'
in general and late Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in particular came to light
which included a large number of family photographs, reports of Inquiry
Commission relating to the death of Netaji. On inquiry it was also revealed
that a special ceremony used to be held in the room of Gumnami Baba @
Bhagwanji on 23rd January every year, which incidentally is the birthday of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and on this day no person of Faizabad was
allowed to visit Bhagwanji and some persons from Calcutta used to come
and spend the day with him.
(2) The aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court, in short, has
also dealt with mysterious disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
theory of his death in air crash and the findings recorded by the three
Commissions, namely, Shahnawaz Commission, Khosla Commission and
Mukherjee Commission relating to the death of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
I now advert, in short, to the political journey of Netaji, his
mysterious disappearance and the theory of his death in air crash, as
discussed in the aforesaid judgment.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose passed the I.C.S. Examination in
September,1920 and joined the I.C.S. but his ardent patriotic spirit forced
him to resign from I.C.S. for the cause of nation and he accordingly resigned
in Apri1,1921. Subhash Chandra Bose thereafter joined Indian National
Congress.
In 1928 Subhash Chandra Bose firmly stressed for complete
independence of India as a goal. In January 1938 when Subhash Chandra
Bose was away in Britain for treatment, he was informed of his election (in
[ 10 ]
absentia) as the President of Indian National Congress. In 1939 he contested
the election for the post of Congress President against Gandhiji's wishes and
won but on account of ideological differences with Gandhiji he resigned as
President of the Congress and created a new block within the Congress,
namely, Forward Block and later on resigned from the said Block. In
1940,during agitation Subhash Chandra Bose was arrested and went on
hunger strike. He declared voluntary fast on 29.11.1940 and communicated
his decision through a letter dated 26.11.1940. While addressing the
countrymen, Subhash Chandra Bose said:
‘‘To my countrymen I say, Forget not that the greatest curse for a
man is to remain a slave. Forget not that the grossest crime is to
compromise with injustice and wrong. Remember the eternal law:
You must give life, if you want to get it. And remember that the
highest virtue is to battle against inequality, no matter what the cost
may be."
Every word and line of Subhash Chandra Bose united the whole
nation compelling the then Government to release him on 05.12.1940.
During House arrest in his own house at Elgin Road, Calcutta, he absconded
on 17.01.1941 and reached Germany via Gomoh, Kabul(Afghanistan). In
Kabul he stayed for 46 days and made arrangement to escape for Berlin. He
reached Berlin on 3rd April,1941 via Moscow. His broadcast from Germany
during World War-II made him an international freedom fighter. He left
Germany in a submarine on the invitation of Indian Independence League
and took its charge and constituted the Indian National Army. He liberated
island of Andaman and Nicobar as Commander-in-Chief of Indian National
Army. He also liberated Manipur area of India from colonial rule.
The provincial Government of Subhash Chandra Bose was recognized
by Japan in October,1945 along with Germany, Italy, Burma, Philippines,
Nanking, Croatia, Manchukuo and Siam. Germany surrendered on
07.05.1945, Japan officially surrendered on 15.08.1945 after Russia
declared war against Japan on 08.08.1945 in Apri1,1945 Subhash Chandra
Bose left Rangoon and reached Bangkok on 14.05.1945 and from there he
left for Singapore. At Singapore, he came to know that Japan had
surrendered.On 15th August,1945 Subhash Chandra Bose left Singapore by

[ 11 ]
a plane for Saigon accompanied by Colonel Habib-ur-Rahman, Pritam
Singh, Gulzara Singh,Maj.Abid Hasan, S.A.Ayer and Debnath Das and
arrived at Bangkok.With the help of Field Marshal Terauchi Subhash
Chandra Bose, alongwith his party, proceeded from Bangkok to Saigon by
the same plane and met Terauchi who made special arrangement for the
flight of Netaji to Shinkyo, Manchuria together with Lt.Gen. Tsunamasa
Shidei, Chief of Staff of Burma Command on a heavy bomber belonging to
Japanese Third Air Force. The team including Subhash Chandra Bose took
off on 17.08.1945. For lack of space in the plane only Habib-ur-Rahman
accompanied Netaji.Others stayed back waiting for the next flight. The
plane stopped at Tourane and they stayed overnight at the Morim Hotel. The
plane took off from Tourane at 5.00 am the next day i.e. 18.08.1945 and
arrived at Taipeh at about noon. After lunch and rest for about two hours,
the plane took off again at about 2.00 pm and made a steep ascent when a
loud explosion was heard and the plane dived to the ground and burst into
flames. It was reported that six persons including Netaji were killed and
seven including Habib-ur-Rahman survived with minor to serious injuries.
Two of them (Lt.Gen.Shidei and Pilot Major Takizawa) died on the spot and
four including Netaji, died in hospital. Netaji was wearing Khaki drill
clothes. His clothes were on fire. Col Rahman laid him down on the ground
and noticed a deep cut on the left side of his head.
Col. Habib-ur-Rahman himself has given an account of the tragedy in
a note to Hayashida in 1966 at Rawalpindi in the following words:
"Mr.S.C.Bose andmyself jumped out through the fire. As soon as
I was out of plane, I saw him struggling with fire on his clothes as
some petrol had been splashed on them. I rushed forward and put out
the fire and soon laid him on the ground."
After laying Netaji on the ground Rahman lay down by his side and
just then Netaji enquired of him (Rahman) 'Apko ziada chot to nahin lagi'.
Netaji sure of not surviving instructed Rahman : "When you go back, tell
my countrymen that I fought to the last for the freedom of my country. And
no power could now keep our country in bondage any longer. They should
continue the struggle. India will be free before long."
[ 12 ]
 Netaji enquired from an interpreter, Mr.Juichi Nakamura, in the
Nanmon Army Hospital, Taipeh, about his men. He said, "My men are
following me and they should be taken care of when they come to
Formosa." His last words were : "I want to sleep." He took rest, after having
fought continuously for the freedom of his mother country, without a word
of complaint or a groan. The Japanese officers, at the other end, were
groaning and crying with pain.
The Japanese doctors (Capt. Yoshimi, T.Tsuruta-who attended on
Netaji), two nurses, Col. Habib-ur-Rahman, interpreter Nakamura and
medical orderly, Mr.Kazo Mitsui were present at the time of Netaji's death.
The Medical Officer, Yoshimi wrote in a death certificate in Japanese, that
(Chandra Bose) died on account of "Burns of third degree." Habib-ur-
Rahman stated: "I noticed that he had sustained a deep head injury which
was bleeding profusely. His body had also suffered from deep burns."
According to Capt. Yoshimi "Netaji was burnt all over……… even his chest
was burnt. His face was swollen……… He was in his senses when he was
brought in. He was in high fever....39 centigrade.’’
Hahbib-ur-Rahman has further stated: " The Japanese doctor treated
him (Netaji) as best as he could, but unfortunately he expired at 8.30 p.m.,
on the same day, 18 August, 1945."
The cremation of Netaji's mortal remains took place at the Taipeh
City Crematorium on 20th August,1945. At the cremation Col. Habib-ur-
Rahman, Maj.Nagatomo from Formosan Army, the interpreter Nakamura,
Buddhist priest and manager for the crematorium were present.
The ashes of Netaji were shifted to the Nishi(west) Honganji, Temple,
Taipeh. Hayashida arrived in Taipeh by a plane (at 2 p.m. on 5
September,1945) and took into custody two boxes - one containing Netaji's
ashes and the other, Netaji's treasure, gold and jewellery, and left after half
an hour for Japan, accompanied by Maj.Nakamiya, Lt.Col.Sakai,
Habib-ur-Rahman and a guard of three soldiers. The party was divided for
the sake of safety at Fukuoka. Col.Rahman and Maj. Nakamiya left by plane
and the remaining party with boxes, left by train (at 3 p.m. on 7 September)
on the eve of the historic entry of General MacArthur into Japan, and
delivered the boxes to (Maj.Kinoshita) at the Imperial General Headquarters
at 11 p.m. on same day.
[ 13 ]
 The next day (8th September) morning, the officer on duty Lt.Col.
Takakura handed over the urn to Mr.Ram Murti, President, the I.I.L. Tokyo
and S.A.Ayer, who received it with overwhelming emotion.
The conversation between S.A.Ayer and Col. Habib-ur-Rahman, on
the same night(8th September,1945) at Mrs. Sahay's residence, ‘‘where Iyer
was staying, cleared all doubts which Mr.Iyer had", stated Mr.Murti in his
statement, "and now Mr.Iyer was convinced that the crash was an
indisputable reality, and Netaji was a victim of it." The statement concluded,
"and we all accepted this as truth without a shadow of doubt in our mind."
The urn was kept at the Renkoji Buddhist temple in Suginami Ward,
Tokyo.
About three days after handing over the urn, Netaji's treasure of gold
and jewellery, of about 11 kgs., valued at rupees one lakh, collected by
about 100 girls of the Taipeh Girls High School, under the direction of
Taipeh Army, after the air crash, another box of valuables was handed over
by the Japanse Imperial General Headquarters to Mr.Murti. A rough list of
the valuables was made by Col.Habib-ur-Rahman and signed by him. This
treasure alongwith 300 grams of gold and 250 yens given by Mr.Ayer,
remained with Mr. Murti (from 1945 to 1951). The First Secretary of the
Indian Mission in Tokyo received Netaji's treasure, signing on the same
receipt of a list prepared by Col.Rahman in 1945, and Mr.Ayer's treasure,
from Mr.Murti on 24th September,1945.The whereabouts of this treasure are
not known as yet.
(3) Sugata Bose, Prof. of History at Harvard University(grandson of
Sarat Chandra Bose) had written a most celebrated biography of Netaji," His
Majesty's Opponent". The sequence of events with regard to enquiries after
death of Netaji has been narrated by Sugata Bose, which shall be worthwhile
to mention hereinafter.
After cremation of dead body at Taipei, there was silence with regard
to Netaji's whereabouts. On August 23,after a five day delay, the Domei
agency of Japan broadcasted the news of Netaji's death.Col.Habib-ur-
Rahman asked the Japanse to fly Netaji's body to Singapore or to Tokyo.
They promised to try, but later reported practical difficulty in doing so.
Habib consented to a cremation in Taipei,which took place on
[ 14 ]
20th August,1945. Ashes were placed in an urn and kept in the Nishi
Honganji Temple.
Soon after the end of war, New Delhi sent two groups of Intelligence
Officers led by Finney and Davies to Southeast Asia to conduct enquiries
and arrest Subhash Chandra Bose,if he was alive.They included two Bengali
police officers, namely, H.K.Roy and K.P.De. Mr. Davies's team, which
included H.K.Roy, went first to Saigon and then to Taipei in
September,1945. They interviewed the Japanese Military Officer in charge
of the Saigon Airport, Military Officers at the Taipei Airport and the Chief
Medical Officer at the Taipei hospital. At Bangkok, it seized a telegram
dated August 20 from the Chief of Staff of the Japanese Southern Army in
Saigon to the officer-in-charge of the Hikari Kikan in Bangkok which
contains the news of crash in the afternoon of August 18 and with regard to
the death of Netaji in the night. Finney's report reached the definite
conclusion that Bose had indeed died as a result of the plane crash on
18.08.1945.
Again in 1946, Mountbatten's headquarters at Kandy conducted
another enquiry into the fate of Subhash Chandra Bose. Mountbatten's probe
into whether Bose had in fact died was conducted through Col. J.G.Figgess,
who was attached to General Macarthur's headquarters in Tokyo and
overseen by an American intelligence officer working under the general
headquarters of the Supreme Command Allied Powers. On 25.07.1946,
Figgess reported that their mortal enemy had indeed met his corporal death
on 18.08.1945.
In August, 1946, an Indian journalist, Harin Shah, visited Taiwan and
gathered information on what he described as the gallant end of Netaji. On-
the-spot journalistic inquiries convinced Harin Shah that the news of Netaji's
death as a result of the air crash was true.
In another enquiry on 19.10.1946, a British Captain, named Alfred
Raymond Turner recorded a statement by Captain Yoshimi Taneyoshi, the
surgeon in charge at the Taipei hospital, inside the Stanley Gaol in Hong
Kong. He stated that the injured were brought from the airport to the
hospital where Japanese military officer had pointed out "Chandra Bose" to
him. The patient had suffered extensive burns. "During the first four hours",

[ 15 ]
according to Dr.Yoshimi "he was semi-conscious, practically normal,
speaking quite a good deal." The doctors believed that the first word he
spoke were in Japanese, asking for water, which he was fed through a
hospital cup with a spout. It is speculated that Bose was unlikely to have
used Japanese word meju for water and may have said something about
"Mejda", his elder brother Sarat. The doctor stated that most of his speaking
was in English . A request for an interpreter was made, and one was sent
from the Civil Government Offices named Nakamura. Nakamura had no
doubt that the man he was speaking with was Chandra Bose. The patient
began to sink into unconsciousness after four hours, and died later that
night. His adjutant, an Indian Colonel, who was also under Yoshmis care,
wanted Bose's body to be taken to Tokyo. Therefore, the doctor injected
Formalin into the body and had the coffin partly filled with lime, which was
taken to the airport on August 20 by warrant officer Nishi. The officer
returned saying that the body, "for some unknown reason,"could not be
transported to Japan and had to be cremated in Taipei. The doctor wrote out
a death certificate for the crematorium. Bose's ashes were handed over to the
Indian colonel.
However, mystery shrouded, confusion created in the mind of
Britishers because of a statement given by Mahatma Gandhi having doubt
with regard to death of Subhash Chandra Bose. The Author, Mr.Sugata
Bose, noted that at later stage, Gandhiji clarified the position that his
statement was based on belief and not on knowledge
It shall be appropriate to quote relevant portion from the book "His
Majesty's Opponent" written by Sugata Bose with regard to the controversy
created because of the statement given by Gandhiji:
" The British had been worried by Gandhi's assertion in early
January 1946 of his belief that Netaji was alive and would appear at
the right moment. A week before the naval mutiny, Gandhi insisted
on speaking about Bose in the present tense. Congressmen interpreted
Gandhi's inner voice to be secret information received from Netaji.
There were other rumors making the rounds. According to one, Nehru
was said to have received a letter from Bose saying that he was in
Russia andwanted to escape to India. He would arrive via Chitral,

[ 16 ]
 where one of Sarat Bose's sons would receive him. Gandhi and Sarat
Bose were alleged to be aware of these plans. The intelligent
assessment deemed this story unlikely, but a growing belief in India
that Bose is alive" was a cause for concern.
On March 30,1946, Gandhi clarified his views on the matter in
his journal Harijan. He referred to the 1942 report on Bose's death,
which he had believed but which later turned out to be incorrect.
Since then, he had had "a feeling that Netaji could not leave us until
his dreams of swaraj had been fulfilled." " To lend strength to his
feeling," he added, " was the knowledge of Netaji's great ability to
hoodwink his enemies and even world for the sake of his cherished
goal." He explained that he had nothing but his "instinct" to tell him
"Netaji was alive." He now conceded that no reliance could be placed
on "such unsupported feeling" and that there was "strong evidence to
counteract the feeling." The British government had access to that
evidence. He had also heard the testimony of Habibur Rahman and
S.A.Ayer. "In the face of these proofs, "the Mahatma wrote," I appeal
to everyone before them, to reconcile themselves to the fact that
Netaji has left us. All man's ingenuity is as nothing before the might
of the one God."
The sequence of events and the incident of plane crash has never been
believed by common Indians. Different Commissions were appointed from
time to time by the Government of India to remove doubt with regard to
plane crash but the incident remained shrouded in a mystery. The common
Indians still do not believe that Netaji died in a plane crash, as referred to
above. It is under these facts and circumstances that different Commissions
were appointed.
Three Commissions were appointed by Government of India, namely,
Shahnawaz Commission, Khosla Commission and Mukherjee Commission,
vide notifications dated 05.04.1956,16.10.1970 and 14.05.1999 respectively.
I propose referring to the main conclusion drawn by the Division Bench of
the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabd High Court in the aforesaid judment by
the said Commissions.

[ 17 ]
 Lucknow Bench has held that Shahnawaz Commission has found that
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose proceeded on an aeroplane bound for
Manchuria on 17.08.1945. The plane crashed and was engulfed in flames at
Taihoku in Formosa on 18th August,1945 as a result whereof Netaji
sustained serious burn injuries and died the same night (night of 18.08.1945)
at Taihoku hospital. The Lucknow Bench has also held that Khosla
Commission reiterated the findings of the Shahnawaz Commission with
regard to the accidental death of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. With regard
to the Mukherjee Commission, the Lucknow Bench has held that the
aforesaid Commission recorded conclusive findings that Netaji did not die
in plane crash at Taipei and ashes placed in Japanese temple are not of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Mukherjee Commission at page 122 of its
report also held that there was no clinching evidence to prove that
Bhagwanji @ Gumnami Baba was Netaji and, therefore, the question
whether he(Netaji) died in Faizabad on September 16,1985, as testified by
some of the witnesses, need not be answered.
It is pertinent to mention that the Government of India rejected the
conclusion of the Mukherjee Commission that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
did not die in a plane crash on 18.08.1945 at Taihoku Hospital in Formosa.
(4) Before parting with the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench
it is pertinent to mention that the Division Bench has discussed at some
length the circumstantial evidence on the basis of which it was canvassed
that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was none other than Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, but since I propose dealing with this part of the judgment of
the Division Bench subsequently and want to avoid repetition I am not
setting forth the discussion of the Division Bench in this connection.

[ 18 ]
 PART III
Evidence of Witnesses
(1) Since this is a Judicial Commission, set up under the Commission
of Inquiry Act,1952, it would only be appropriate for the Commission to
answer the term of reference, namely, to find out the identity of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji, who lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last
rites were performed on 18th September, 1985, primarily on the evidence of
witnesses who have deposed before the Commission.
(2) Despite the fact (as is also apparent from Para 4 of Part I of this
report) that notifications were published in Hindi and English in local
newspapers and also in newspapers published in Bangla language,
regrettably only forty-five witnesses deposed before the Commission(thirty-
five in person and ten through affidavits,which for reasons mentioned in
them, were treated by the Commission as their statements before it). To
elicit truth they were also cross-examined by the Commission. While
evaluation their testimony, it was always in my mind that they were
disposing about events which they had seen/took place at least thirty-one
years earlier (Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji died on 16th September,
1985). In fact, some of them deposed about happenings which took place
about sixty to sixty-five years earlier.
(3) It is common knowledge that human memory gets blurred with
passage of time and when witnesses are asked to recall facts/events which
took place thirty-one to sixty-five years earlier they are prone to fill in the
gaps from their imagination. Consequenty I evaluated the testimony of
witnesses, with utmost caution and immense scrutiny.
(4) It is in this perspective that I propose evaluating the testimony of
all the witnesses who deposed before the Commission. They are described
as CW (Commission Witness).
(5.1) The first two witnesses, whose evidence I propose evaluating are
CW-1 Jayanti Rakshit (Jayanti Bose) and her husband CW-2 Amiya
Rakshit. Since their evidence is verbatim the same, I am dealing with it
together.
The evidence of Jayanti Rakshit and Amiya Rakshit shows as under:

[ 19 ]
 They are residents of G-4, Doveland Court, 29/13, Balligunj Park,
Kolkata-70019, Jayanti Rakshit is the grand niece of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose (Netaji) inasmuch as her grandfather late Sarat Chandra Bose
was the real brother of Netaji and Amiya Rakshit is the husband of Jayanti
Rakshit; for about 60 years there was no news about Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose; in 2012, after reading Anuj Dhar's Book " India's Biggest
Cover Up" in which Anuj Dhar had mentioned that the person who was
living in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, they felt
that a more elaborate enquiry be made about Netaji's disappearance,
thereafter alongwith Tapti Ghosh (Sister of Jayanti Rakshit and sister-in-law
of Amiya Rakshit) they came to Faizabad and talked to a number of persons
whose impression was that Gumnami Baba was no other than late Subhash
Chandra Bose; thereafter they went back to Calcutta and talked to Bijoy Nag
and Surojit Dasgupta and a big group of some people who used to visit
Faizabad every year on 23rd January,which was the birthday of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose, who told them that they were not in a position to fix
his identity because there was a curtain between the room in which
Gumnami Baba used to stay and the place from where they used to talk to
him; however, Surojit Dasgupta said one day while talking to Gumnami
Baba the curtain moved aside and he found that the person who was sitting
in the room was Subhash Chandra Bose; they also met in Faizabad Rita
Banerjee (daughter-in-law of late Dr. P.Banerjee) who told them that she
often visited Gumnami Baba and had seen him and thought he was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose; they also talked to Beethi Chatterjee, mother of Rita
Banerjee,who told them that she had seen Subhash Chandra Bose before and
after hearing Gumnami Baba's voice she thought that he was Subhash
Chandra Bose.
They did not have any personal knowledge whether Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was Subhash Chandra Bose or not; on the basis of what
was told to them by the above mentioned persons, they had a strong
suspicion that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose; and they had not seen
any Book/items which are alleged to have been used by Gumnami Baba and
are said to have belonged to Subhash Chandra Bose.(emphasis supplied).
I have carefully/thoughtfully perused the statements of CW-1 Jayanti
Rakshit ( Jayanti Bose) and her husband CW-2 AmiyaRakshit and after
[ 20 ]
bestowing my anxious consideration on their entire statements, I am of the
view that since they did not have any personal knowledge whether
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Subhash Chandra Bose or not and on
the basis of what was told to them by people they had a strong suspicion that
he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, their evidence thus was purely
hearsay and the Commission cannot legally hold on their hearsay evidence
that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. In my view, their
evidence is of no help to the Commission in determining the identity of
Gumnami Baba.
(5.2) Now I take up the evidence of CW-3 Anuj Dhar. His evidence
shows as under:
He is aged about 46 years and is a resident of 263,Kangra Niketan,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi; he investigated this case as a journalist since 2002
and during course of investigation met people in U.P. and West Bengal, who
had links with Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji; he also analyzed the
documentary material left by Bhagwanji and submitted to Mr.B.Lal Kapoor,
one of the leading authorities on handwriting samples of handwriting of both
Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagwanji in English on behalf of Hindustan
Times and Mr.B.Lal Kapoor gave a positive report that the samples were of
the same person; subsequently Mr.B.Lal Kapoor apeared before the
M.K.Mukherjee Commission, which was set up by Government of India to
enquire into the disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and gave
the same report (before the Mukherjee Commission the samples of
handwriting of Bhagwanji and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were given
both in English and Bangla)
The evidence of CW-3 Anuj Dhar further shows that he had been
talking to people who had occasion to know about Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji and the sum and substance of his entire investigation lead to the
inference that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose who from about two years prior to his death was living in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad where he died on 16th September,1985.
The evidence of Mr.Anuj Dhar further shows that alongwith
Mr.Chandrachur Ghose (he was examined before the Commission as CW-4)
he did a detailed joint investigation in this matter and they jointly prepared a
[ 21 ]
report which he submitted before the Commission with the request that it be
treated as a part of his statement.
It is pertinent to mention that the Commission took the said report on
record and directed that it shall be read as a part of the statement of the
witness and marked it as Ext.C-1.
Mr.Anuj Dhar was cross-examined by the Commission. Two
questions were put to him in cross-examination to which he furnished
replies. I am extracting the questions put to Mr.Anuj Dhar and the answers
given by him verbatim:
"Q-1.Do you have any personal knowledge of the fact whether
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were
one and the same person?
Ans. I took up the investigation sometimes during the year 2002
(Gumnami Baba died on 16th Sept.1985) and have no personal knowledge.
The source of my knowledge I have disclosed are what I have stated above
and in the documentary evidence which I have filed.
Q-2. From where did you get handwriting samples of Gumnami Baba
and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose?
Ans. I only got English samples of writing of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose from National Archives, New Delhi and books published by Netaji
Research Bureau of Calcutta.
I obtained samples of Gumnami Baba @ Bhagwanji in English from
Mr.Ashok Tandon, resident of Faizabad, late Dr.P.Banerjee, resident of
Faizabad, who used to visit him and late Durga Prasad Pandey,resident of
Basti,who knew Gumnami Baba @ Bhagwanji intimately."
Anuj Dhar stated that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
who from about two years prior to his death was living in Ram Bhawan at
Faizabad, where he died on 16th September,1985. A perusal of his statement
shows that he was prompted to reach the said conclusion for two reasons,
namely:-(a) Mr.B.Lal Kapoor, handwriting expert, to whom the samples of
handwriting of both Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagwanji in English were
given, gave a positive report that the samples were of the same person; and
(b) he had been talking to people who had occasion to know about
[ 22 ]
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and it transpired from his conversation
with them that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose were the same person.
I have reflected over the aforesaid reasons and in my view they
cannot be a valid basis for reaching the said conclusion.
So far reason (a) is concerned, it has been soundly repelled by the
Mukherjee Commission at page 121 of its report in para 4.15.9 in the
following words:
" The reports of the experts to whom the handwritings appearing
in some books and journals found in 'Rambhawan' were sent for
comparison with the admitted handwritings of Netaji materially
differ. While one of them viz. Shri B.Lal,Ex-Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents,New Delhi (CW-119) has given a firm opinion
that those (both Bengali and English) were of Netaji, Shri Amar Singh
and Shri M.L.Sharma (CW-121) of the Office of the Government
Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Simla,
who have filed a joint report, and Dr.S.K.Mondal of Forensic Science
Laboratory, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata (CW-120) have
given a contrary opinion. Such divergent opinion and absence of any
evidence from any person conversant with the handwriting of Netaji
that the questioned writings were of Netaji is another impediment to
the safe acceptance of the oral version given in this regard."
So far as reason (b), namely, that the information which the witness
derived from conversation which he had with people who knew about
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and which led him ( the witness) to believe
that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is
concerned, was purely hearsay and consequently cannot be accepted by me.
It is pertinent to mention that Mr.Anuj Dhar in Ext.C-1 has stated in
para-8 that there were impediments in believing that Bhagwanji was Netaji.
I am extracting the said impediments in entirety:

[ 23 ]
 "8.Impediments in believing that Bhagwanji was Netaji.
8.1 The deponents would also like to place on record before the
Hon'ble Commission certain facts and instances which come in the
way of accepting the theory that Bhagwanji was Netaji.
8.2 The very idea that Netaji could have lived secretly, in hinding,
in such a wretched condition in his own country for so long is
absolutely repugnant. This is the single most important reason why
most people reject the Bhagwanji-Netaji link outright, without caring
to go into details. Delving into the details, on the other hand, brings
out a narrative that is so extraordinary that it makes the matter all the
more incomprehensible.
8.3 On scrutiny of available information, the persona of
Bhagwanji throws up 3 variations, each being difficult to reconcile
with the other, especially because Bhagwanji has not left much data
for us to work on and most people who knew him best are either dead
or not willing to divulge fully all that they are privy to.From his
claims, believed in religiously by his followers, Bhagwanji appears to
be someone who was a high level international covert player going
around the world advising numerous multi-national negotiations, a
highly attained tantrik with supernatural powers and, at the same
time, a person who lived in abject penury, suffering from ill-health
from 1960 onward. The deponents cannot explain how a man who
claimed he was helping covert military and diplomatic operations of
the anti-imperialist block in different parts of the world, a man who
claimed to have played a pivotal role in 1962,1965 and 1971 wars
was not able to fend for himself properly. These contradictions are
difficult to explain particularly in view of Bhagwanji's and his
followers' claim that he had spiritual powers beyond the realm of
science.
8.4 If Bhagwanji was indeed Netaji, he would have been able to
give insights on events related to his life no one could have. He would
have, for example, given fullest details of how he escaped from India
in 1941 and how he escaped to Russia in 1945 after a fake story of air
crash was planned. Whatever the deponents have been able to access

[ 24 ]
 thus far, including copies of correspondence, etc. recovered from
Ram Bhawan and those made available by Bhagwanji's followers,
provide only sketchy information and cannot be used to connect the
dots to the satisfaction of sceptics. This is all the more reason why
complete records should be summoned from each Bhagwanji's
followers.
8.5 Next, Bhagwanji's many claims are not supported by anything
that is in public domain. The claim that Netaji was declared a war
criminal after the Second World War and that his name appeared on
the list of war criminals remains unsubstantiated, even as list of war
criminals bearing the names of Hitler and others have become public.
The very fact that both Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and
Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) of the United States should have
informed Deponent under the country's Freedom of Information Act
that they do not have any information about Netaji prima facie casts
doubt on much of Bhagwanji's claims."
A perusal of Ext.C-1 also shows that in respect of Gumnami Baba's
identity in all there were 6 claims. The said claims have been enumerated in
para 4 of Ext.C-1 and read as under:
"Claim No.1 : Bhagwanji was one Krishna Dutt Upadhyay, a fugitive
accused ofmurder.
Claim No.2: Bhagwanji was an Anand Margi.
Claim No.3: Bhagwanji was a CIA agent.
Claim No.4: Bhagwanji was a blind follower of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
Claim No.5: Bhagwanji was a Netaji's imposter,set by the Intelligence
Bureau.
Claim No.6: Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in hiding."
A perusal of Ext.C-1 also shows that in para 6.3.1 of para 6.3 bearing
heading 'material evidence' it has been mentioned that " the most important
evidence that could be had from Baba's belongings pertains to samples that
could be tested forensically. These are his

[ 25 ]
handwritingspecimens,fingerprints and biological remains containing traces
of his DNA."
So far as the handwriting specimens of Bhagwanji are concerned, I
have already mentioned earlier as to why they do not merit acceptance.
In para 6.3.11, 6.3.12 and 6.3.13 Mr.Anuj Dhar has dealt with the
DNA analysis and stated that the conclusion of Mukherjee Commission that
the DNA found from the teeth did not match with that of paternal and
maternal relatives of Netaji does not merit acceptance in view of the
findings of the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petitions that there was
no evidence that the five teeth found in Ram Bhawan sent for DNA test
were of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and who were the persons who
retained the teeth of Bhagwanji after cremation.
With profound respect to the Division Bench, in my view, the said
reason cannot be a basis for discrediting the DNA result. In this connection,
I would first like to deal with para 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 of the Mukherjee
Commission report at pages 121 and 122 respectively of the said report,
which read thus:
"4.15.10. Five teeth out of nine, found in Ram Bhawan' alongwith
samples of blood collected from two descendants on the father's side
and three descendants on the mother's side of Netaji were sent to the
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata for DNA profiling test
to fix the identity of the person to whom the teeth belonged. After
subjecting three of the five teeth to the above test Dr. V.K.Kashyap,
DNA Expert and Director of the Laboratory submitted a detailed
report with the following opinion:
From the morphological examination and analysis of SRY gene,
mt DNA (HVS I & HVS II), and Y-STR loci in the forwarded Exhibits
1-10,it can be concluded that forwarded- (Exhibits 2 to 4) belong to a
single human aged male individual -(alleged Gumnami Baba). The
individual- source of the teeth does not belong to either maternal or
paternal DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, therefore,
cannot be of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose."
"4.15.11 He was thereafter examined by this Commission as
CW-126 in course of which his report was exhibited (Ext.222A). He
[ 26 ]
 was cross-examined at length by some of the deponents to bring home
their point that no reliance could be placed on his opinion but their
attempt failed. Since the report categorically states that all the teeth
belonged to a single human aged male individual and since except
Gumnami Baba, the only other aged member who stayed with him all
along was Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla, the negative finding recorded
by Dr.Kashyap quoted earlier also militates against the eyewitnesses'
account."
Since there is no dispute that at the time of the death of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji the only other aged person who was living with him
in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad was Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla and the
Mukherjee Commission, as is borne out from perusal of Para 4.15.11 of its
report, has taken this fact into account, in my view it has been established
beyond all reasonable doubt that the teeth sent to the DNA expert were of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji.
Finally, it is pertinent to mention that one of the documents
(Annexure 27) which is a part of Ext.C-1 is enquiry report of the Senior
Superintendent of Police,Faizabad with respect to the death of one
Bhagwanji who lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad, died on 16.09.1985 at 9.40
p.m; was cremated at Guptar Ghat,Faizabad on 18.09.1985; whom many
believed was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose; and in the said report it has
been mentioned that all the three/four persons who were intimately
connected with Bhagwanji (some names have also been mentioned) were
closely examined by the police and none of them was able to give any solid
evidence to suggest that Bhagwanji was in fact Netaji.
When the aforesaid facts are borne in mind, it would not be safe to
accept the claim of CW-3 Anuj Dhar that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who from about two years prior to his
death was living in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad where he died on 16.09.1985.
5.3 Evidence of CW-4 Chandrachur Ghose,aged about 42 years, son
of N.K.Ghose, resident of D-94, Ridgewood Estate, DLF Phase-IV,
Gurgaon shows as under:
In 2004 when he was in England he came to know about Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji; sometimes in 2006 he returned to India and
[ 27 ]
alongwith Anuj Dhar CW-3, jointly started investigating about identity of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji; he and Anuj Dhar contacted a large
number of persons, both in Calcutta and Faizabad (at Faizabad Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji died on 16.09.1985 in Ram Bhawan where he used to
live) who were in touch with Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji; thereafter he
asked the Central Government to release all the exhibited documents which
were a part of M.K.Mukherjee Commission set up by the Government of
India to enquire into the fate of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose; exhibits were
classified records; in deference to his desire the Government of India
declassified them in the year 2010; he and Anuj Dhar took into possession
the copies of documents pertaining to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji from
people who had come in contact with him, residing in Calcutta and
Faizabad, he and Anuj Dhar separately met Justice M.K.Mukherjee with
regard to the circumstances in which late Subhash Chandra Bose died.
The evidence of Chandrachur Ghose further shows that on the basis
of the information derived by him from people living in Calcutta and
Faizabad, who were in touch with Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and the
documents obtained from the Central Government, he came to the
conclusion that there was a very strong possibility of the person known as
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji being Subhash Chandra Bose( Emphasis
supplied).
The evidence of Chandrachur Ghose also shows that he and Anuj
Dhar had collectively done a comprehensive research about identity of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji; he (Chandrachur Ghose) desired that he be
permitted to file a copy of the research paper prepared by him and Anuj
Dhar and the said research paper be treated as a part of his statement and be
read alongwith it by the Commission.
The Commission granted the aforesaid request of Chandrachur
Ghose; took the said research paper on record; marked it as Ext.C-2 for
identification; and directed that it shall be read by the Commission as a part
of his statement.
Finally, Chandrachur Ghose stated that he and Anuj Dhar were still
doing research in the matter and desired that if subsequently some useful
material comes to light the Commission should permit him to file the same.

[ 28 ]
 Chandrachur Ghose was cross-examined by the Commission and the
solitary question put to him and the answer furnished by him to the said
question are being extracted below:
"Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of the fact whether
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and Subhash Chandra Bose were the
same person?
Ans. I have no personal knowledge that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were one and the same
person but on the basis of my research paper I think there is a very
strong possibility of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose being the same person."
I would straightaway like to mention that information derived by
Chandrachur Ghose from people that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
Subhash Chandra Bose, being hearsay, cannot be legally used for
concluding that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Subhash Chandra
Bose.
I have very thoughtfully perused the statement of CW-4 Chandrachur
Ghose and the research paper jointly prepared by him and CW-3 Anuj Dhar
and filed by him -Ext.C-2.
Since I have already discussed the research paper jointly prepared by
him and CW-3 Anuj Dhar while dealing with the evidence of CW-3 Anuj
Dhar, I do not feel it necessary to refer to it again.
In his examination-in-chief Chandrachur Ghose has stated as follows:
"On the basis of the information derived by me from the people
living in Calcutta and Faizabad, who were in touch with Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji and the documents obtained from the Central
Government, I came to the conclusion that there was a very strong
possibility of the person known as Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
being Subhash Chandra Bose "(Emphasis supplied)
In his cross-examination Chandrachur Ghose admitted as follows:
" I have no personal knowledge that Gumnami Baba
@Bhagwanji and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were one and the
same person but on the basis of my research paper I think there is a
[ 29 ]
 very strong possibility of Gumnami Baba @ Bhagwanji and Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose being the same person."(Emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the above would show that Chandrachur Ghose had no
personal knowledge that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose were one and the same person but on the basis of
research work he thought that there is a very strong possibility of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji being Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the claim of
Chandrachur Ghose that there was a very strong possibility that Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were one and the
same person.
It should be borne in mind that Judicial Commissions of Enquiry (like
the present) do not reach conclusions on a very strong possibility; they only
reach one when there is a very high degree of probability of the likelihood
of something being true. In this connection it would be apposite to refer to
the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs.
The State of Punjab (AIR 1957 Supreme Court page 637) where the
Supreme Court in Para 9 held that suspicions howsoever strong can never
take the place of proof and in Para 11 held that between may be true and
must be true there is a long distance to travel and the inference of guilt
cannot be drawn unless it has been travelled.
For the said reasons, the evidence of Chandrachur Ghose CW-4 does
not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.4 I now take up the evidence of CW-5 Sreejith Panicker. Its perusal
shows as under:
His personal perception is that there is a very strong possibility of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji being Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
because in his position as founder member of Mission Netaji, which is a
research organization in New Delhi, he had been studying about this matter
since the last ten years and collecting information about Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji from various sources, including people from Faizabad who had
personally met him and Government sources; in February 2016 he visited
Faizabad and met Mrs. Rita Banerjee (daughter-in-law of late
[ 30 ]
Dr.T.C.Banerjee, personal physician of late Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji)
who had personally seen and spoken to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji;
Mrs. Rita Banerjee told him that Gumnami Baba had mentioned to her that
he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose; under the Right to Information
Act,2005 he made a large number of requests to Central Government for
information pertaining to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji; he received two
replies from Central Government, which he filed before the Commission,
desiring that they be treated as a part of his statement.
The Commission took the said replies on record; marked them as
Ext.C-3 and C-4 for identification; and directed that they shall be read as a
part of his statement.
Sreejith Panicker also deposed that his impression was that some
information pertaining to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji is with
Centre/State of U.P. Intelligence Department and since he had no access to
it because the Intelligence Department is exempt from RTI, the Commission
may seek information from them.
Sreejith Panicker was cross-examined by the Commission and during
it admitted "I do not have anypersonal knowledge but on the basis of
information which I have gathered from Mrs. Rita Banerjee and some
others, feel that there is a very strong possibility of Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji being Subhash Chandra Bose." (Emphasis supplied)
I have very carefully perused the statement of Sreejith Panicker and
Ext. C-3 and C-4. After giving my anxious consideration to the matter, I am
of the view that there is no legal evidence on the basis of which the
Commission can accept the claim of the witness that there was a very strong
possibility of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji being Subhash
Chandra Bose.
A perusal of the cross-examination of Sreejith Panicker (I have
extracted it earlier), shows that he had no personal knowledge that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Subhash Chandra Bose but on the
basis of information which he had gathered from Mrs. Rita Banerjee and
some others he felt that there was a strong possibility of Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji being Subhash Chandra Bose.
Since the evidence on the basis of which Sreejith Panicker concluded
that there was a strong possibility of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji being
[ 31 ]
Subhash Chandra Bose was hearsay in nature and a nullity in law, it cannot
be a valid basis for drawing the aforesaid inference.
It is also pertinent to mention that a perusal of replies furnished by
Central Government with respect to Ext.C-3 and C-4 show that it had no
information pertaining to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji being Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
For the said reasons, in my view, the claim of Sreejith Panicker that
there was a strong possibility of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji being
Subhash Chandra Bose cannot be accepted.
5.5 I now propose considering the evidence of CW-6 Shyama Charan
Pandey,aged about 72 years, son of Krishna Kant Pandey, resident of village
and post Kaithi, Police Station Chaubepur, district Varanasi. His evidence
shows as under:
Since Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had died in 1977 in Dehradun,
Gumnami Baba, who used to live in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last
rites were performed on 18.09.1985 was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The witness gave a compilation to the Commission, containing a large
number of papers which showed his association with Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose and requested that the said compilation be treated as a part of
his statement. The Commission accepted the aforesaid request of the witness
and marked the said compilation as Ext.C-5.
A perusal of the said compilation shows that its gist is contained in an
affidavit dated 14.09.2016 sworn before a Notary. That affidavit is a part of
the compilation. A perusal of the said affidavit shows as under:
On 2nd December,1951 all of a sudden, one Shardanand came to
village Kaithi where he came in contact with his father ( late Krishna Kant
Pandey); he stayed in village Kaithi for about two and half months in a cave
on the banks of river Ganga; at the instance of Shardanandji, in the year
1954, his father resigned from provincial service and spent most of his time
serving him; sometimes after the arrival of Shardanandji in village Kaithi
people started saying that Shardanandji was none else than Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose and in the local newspapers this news was flashed; all of a
sudden on February 17,1952 Shardnandji left Kaithi and proceeded to

[ 32 ]
Punjab; the uncle of the witness Radha Kant Pandey( late) accompanied
him; in 1959 Shardanandji in Qasba Falakata, which was located in district
Cooch Behar in West Bengal, established Shoulmari Ashram, with the
object of improvement of mankind and upliftment of the country; at the
Ashram people started talking that Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose; all of a sudden in the year 1966 Shardanandji left Shoulmari
Ashram and proceeded for Uttar Pradesh alongwith Dr. Suresh Chandra
Pandey (retired Principal) resident of Amravati, Maharashtra; on April 17,
1977 Shardanandji died at 194, Rajpur Road,Dehradun; the entries
contained in various diaries of his father lead to a strong suspicion that
Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose;
Mr.Nihrendra Dutt Majumdar,former Law Minister of West Bengal,
who had worked with Netaji met Shardanandji in Shoulmari Ashram, who
told him that Subhash Chandra Bose had not died yet and when former
asked him what was the impediment in his not coming out
openly,Shardanandji told him that he was suspicious of the intentions of
Nehru and members of his family; in 1972 during his stay at Varanasi,
Shardanandji in reply to a question by the witness said that Subhash Bose
was not killed in a plane crash but may have died later; in the year 1962-63
after meeting Shardanandji, Uttam Chand Malhotra, at whose Kabul
residence in the year 1941 Netaji had stayed for 46 days, said that
Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose; in the year 1972-73 Shiv
Nath Singh Maurya and Dr. Bhagwan Das Arora met Shardanandji in
Varanasi and declared that he was Subhash Chandra Bose; during the period
1962 to 1965 Shiv Nath Singh Maurya wrote letters to President of India,
Prime Minister of India and Home Minister of India mentioning that Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose was staying in Shoulmari Ashram; Ram Shanker
Singh, aged about 92 years and Vishram Singh aged 90 years, who served
Shardanandji for a long number of years were of the definite opinion that he
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose; in Shoulmari Ashram one Brigadier of
Azad Hind Fauj came to meet Shardanandji, but he did not meet him; while
going back the Brigadier stated that had Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose died,
he would not have come to meet him; while Shardanandji used to stay in
Dehradun, Colonel Pritam Singh, Lt. Col. Damodar Bhatt, Udai Singh
Dangi and Uttam Chandra Malhotra (all of Azad Hind Fauj) constantly used
[ 33 ]
to help him; handwriting expert Vikas Srivastava compared the handwriting
of Shardanandji and Subhash Chandra Bose and opined that they were of the
same person; and on the basis of the aforesaid facts the witness has deposed
in para 11 of the affidavit that Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose and Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was not Subhash Chandra Bose.
I have perused the aforesaid averments in the affidavit and other
documents which are a part of the compilation. Their perusal shows that
primarily the impression of the witness that Shardanandji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose was derived from the information furnished by Ram
Shanker Singh, Vishram Singh, Nihrendra Dutt Majumdar, Uttam Chandra
Malhotra, Dr.Bhagwan Das Arora, Shiv Nath Singh Maurya and a former
Brigadier of Azad Hind Fauj. In my view, the said information being
hearsay in nature is a nullity in law and the conclusion of the witness that
Shardanandji was Subhash Chandra Bose is legally untenable. It is true that
a perusal of the affidavit shows that during his stay at Varanasi (in 1972)
Shardanandji told the witness that Subhash Chandra Bose was not killed in a
plane crash but he may have died later, but the said statement does not
mean/show that Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
It may be mentioned that although the handwriting expert ( his
opinion is part of the compilation) found sufficient grounds of similarity in
the writings of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Shardanand and,
therefore, opined that Shardanandji may be a hidden personality of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose but I make no bones in observing that since there is
irrefutable evidence in the form of the report of M.K.Mukherjee
Commission ( it was set up by the Central Government to enquire into the
alleged disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose) that Shardanandji
was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, the opinion of handwriting expert
has to be ignored. At pages 108,109,110 and 111 Justice M.K.Mukherjee
has dealt with it under the heading (iii) Death in Dehradun. I am extracting
the discussion in entirety:-
"(iii) Death in Dehradun
4.13. The version claiming that Netaji died at Dehradun in 1977
stems from the setting up of an Ashram named and styled as 'Shoulmari
Ashram' at a place called Falakata in the district of Cooch Behar which
[ 34 ]
borders Bangladesh,Bhutan and Nepal. According to the materials made
avilable to this Commision, this Ashram was set up in or about 1959 by a
Sadhu known as Shardanandji (hereinafter referred to as "Sadhuu’’ and his
disciples. At the inception nobody took notice of the Ashram and for that
matter of the Sadhu, but when it extended its geographical area over 100
acres of land, its inhibitants rose to about 1,500 and armed guards were
posted, outsiders living in and around the place became inquisitive about
the real identity of the Sadhuas well as goings-on at the Ashram. Within a
few months thereafter rumour spread in the district of Cooch Behar that
Netaji had been living in the Ashram in the guise of the Sadhu. Though this
rumour created a lot of commotion among the people the general
intelligentsia ignored the rumour in absence of. any authentic basis to prove
that the Sadhu was Netaji.However, the rumour persisted and in 1961 it
spread throughout the country.
4.13.1 Attracted by the rumour, Major SatyaGupta, a close associate
of .Netaji, met the Sadhu in February, 1962 at the Ashram and after coming
back to Calcutta he called a press conference wherein he asserted that the
Sadhu was none but Netaji. The assertion so made by him was published in
different national newspapers on February 13,1962. Thereafter, some
people of repute visited the Ashram and met the Sadhu to ascertain whether
he was Netaji or not. On return diametrically opposite views were expressed
them regarding his identity. The issue was also raised in Indian Parliament
and it became the subject matter of a debate. The Sadhu reportedly stayed in
the Ashram for about 6/7 years whereafter he visited several places in India
and ultimately settled down in Dehradun in 1973. There he died in 1977.
4.13.2 The question whether the Sadhu was Netaji or not came up for
consideration before the Khosla Commission wherein, while some of the
persons claimed that the Sadhu was none but Netaji, the others denied it.
Before this Commission also the witnesses who were examined on this issue
were similarly divided in their views. Before considering the evidence of the
relevant witnesses examined by the earlier Commission, evidence adduced
before this Commission may be looked into.
4.13.3 Of the eleven witnesses examined on this scroe eight have put
forward the story that the Sadhu was none other than Netaji, while the other

[ 35 ]
three have disputed the claim. The eight witnesses that fall in the first
category are Sudhangsu Kumar Poddar (CW76), Sudhir Kumar Poddar
(CW77), Lalit Mohan Chowdhury (CW78), Bikas Chandra Guhu (CW79).
Sujit Kumar Biswas (CW80), Subhash Ranjan Dasgupta (CW85),
S.S.Padhye (CW102) and Viswajit Dutta (CW113). When their evidence is
pitted against that of the witnesses of the other category, viz. Rajat Kanti
Bhadra (CW81), Dinabandhu Dutta (CW82.) and Nikhil Chandra Ghatak
(CW83), the evidence of the former cannot be accepted for the following
reasons: -
(i) The witnesses who claimed that the Sadhu was Netaji were
only occassional visitors to the Ashram and they have not produced
any reliable document in support of their such claim except that CW
79 produced a letter which, according to him, was handed over by the
Sadhu on October 15,1967 authorising him to collect/raise donations
on behalf of the Ashram and which was not found, when examined by
the handwriting experts at the instance of the Commission alongwith
the admitted handwriting of Netaji, to have been written by the latter,
and
(ii) CW 81, who used to look after the stores of the Ashram
during 1961-1967, CW82, who was also connected with the Ashram
since was established in 1959 and is still with it, and CW83, who is
senior practising Advocate in Jalpaiguri Courts and also a lecturer in
Jalpaiguri Law College and was looking after the litigations
concerning and/or relating to the Ashram, categorically stated that
the Sadhu had denied in no uncertain terms that he was Netaji born in
wedlock of Janaki Nath Bose and Bivabati Bose asserted that he was
born in a Brahmin family of East Bengal( now Bangaldesh) and
reiterated his aforesaid denial/assertion in various meetings held in
the Ashram as also in meetings outside. This was corroborated by
another witness, viz. CW 102 S.S.Padhye. Admittedly, Netaji was born
in a Kayastha family of Cuttak in the State of Orissa.
4.13.4 Before the Khosla Commission also some witnesses made a
similar statement as would be seen from the evidence of Dr. Pabitra Mohan
Roy (KW 176) and Sri Surendra Mohan Ghose (KW154) before whom the

[ 36 ]
Sadhu had stated that he was not Netaji and was not the son of Janaki Nath
Bose. Distinguishing the Sadhu's appearance, accent and his manner of
speaking from those of Netaji, Nihrendu Dutta Majumdar, who deposed
before the Khosla Commission as witness No.KW 174,stated that the Sadhu
did not resemble Netaji and he spoke the dialect of the Sylhet border in East
Bengal, whereas Netaji was a man of Cuttack(Orissa) with his ancestral
home in South 24-Parganans (West Bengal)."
A perusal of the above would make it absolutely clear that when
Sadhu himself told Rajat Kanti Bhadra (CW-81), Deen Bandhu Dutta (CW-
82) and Nikhil Chandra Ghatak (CW-83) before the Mukherjee Commission
and Dr. Pabitra Mohan Roy (KW-176) and Sri Surendra Mohan Ghose
(KW154) before the Khosla Commission that he was not Netaji and the son
of Janaki Nath Bose, it becomes crystal clear that the claim of Shyama
Charan Pandey (CW-6) that Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
is rendered untenable and cannot be accepted.
For the said reasons, in my view the evidence of Shyama Charan
Pandey does not inspire confidence.
5.6 I now take up the evidence of CW-7 Smt.Rita Banerjee,aged
about 64 years, wife of late Dr. Priya Brat Banerjee, resident of 1/13/1,Civil
Lines, Faizabad.
The salient facts which emerge from her evidence are as under:
In 1975 Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla, who used to look after Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji, came to her father-in-law late Dr. T.C.Banerjee and
requested him to accompany her to Ayodhya to attend to a Sanyasi (Saint)
who was unwell. Dr. Banerjee, after some persuation, ultimately acceded to
her request and alongwith her visited the place where the saint used to stay
and examined him(the saint was known as Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji). While Dr.Banerjee was leaving she told him that he should not
tell anyone about him (saint). On his return he (Dr.Banerjee) told her and
members of the family that he had met Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Thereafter she and other members of the family requested him to take them
to the place where the saint used to stay. Initially Dr.Banerjee turned down
their request on the ground that the saint did not meet anyone but ultimately
relented. One day he alongwith his wife Smt.Pushpa Banerjee, his son Dr.
[ 37 ]
P.Banerjee (husband of the witness) and the witness came to Brahmkund in
Ayodhya where the saint used to stay. On their first visit the saint allowed
her father-in-law Dr.T.C.Banerjee to meet him and they had to stay outside
the room in which he used to stay. There was a curtain between the room in
which the saint used to stay and the place where they were sitting. After 7/8
visits by them to meet the saint, one day the saint finally agreed to meet
them. He asked Smt.Saraswati Devi, whom he used to address as Jagdamba,
to get a mat and asked the four of them,namely, the witness, her father-in-
law, her husband and her mother-in-law to sit on it. Her father-in-law
introduced them to the saint. Thereafter the saint took out his spectacles and
told them 'Theek se dekho kahin main Subhash Chandra Bose to nahi.'
Thereupon when they looked at the saint their suspicion that he was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose turned into a reality. Thereafter they frequently
started visiting the saint. She (the witness) often used to take food for him.
However, twice a year they could not meet the saint i.e. around 23rd January
( the date of his birthday) and Durga Pooja because on the said occasions
people from Calcutta used to visit him. One day she ( the witness) heard that
the saint had left Lucknauwa Hata in Ayodhya where he used to stay and
shifted to Ram Bhawan,Faizabad because someone had told him that
members of Banerjee family were telling people that he (Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji) was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. For about one to one
and a half years Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was so much angry with
them that he did not meet them. On 29th November,1983 her father-in-law
died whereupon Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji through Smt. Saraswati
Devi Shukla (Jagdamba) sent the family members a letter of condolence and
conveyed to them to meet him after all the post. death ceremonies pertaining
to late Dr.Banerjee were completed. Thereafter they regularly kept on
visiting Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad,where
he died on 16.09.1985.
The witness filed a written statement, which the Commission took on
record, marked it as Ext.C-6 and directed that it shall be read as a part of her
statement. (A reading of the written statement shows that the witness
verbatim has deposed before the Commission from it.)

[ 38 ]
 In order to assess the credibility of Smt.Rita Banerjee and the
truthfulness of her claim that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose, the Commission subjected her to cross-examination.
In reply to the question that between 16th September, 1985 (the date
of death of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji) and the recording of her
statement by the Commission (15.10.2016) what effort she had made to
prove/establish that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,she stated
that since Bhagwanji did not want that his identity should be disclosed to
anyone, till 15.10.2016 she did not disclose to anyone that Bhagwanji was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The next question put by the Commission to her was why she was
now saying that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. She replied
that since Mission Netaji was making a serious effort to discover the identity
of Gumnami Baba and some people were saying that he was a imposter, she
had told the Commission that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
In reply to the question as to whether she had deposed before the
Shahnawaz Commission, Khosla Commission and Mukherjee Commission,
she replied that before the Mukherjee Commission she had not deposed but
her husband had.
To the question if Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was actually
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, why he was concealing his identity, she
stated that it was on account of some sort of pressure.
I have perused the statement of Smt.Rita Banerjee and the written
statement Ext.C-6 filed by her very minutely and am constrained to observe
that I cannot accept her claim that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose for three major reasons. Firstly, in my view, if
Smt. Rita Banerjee was really convinced that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, she would not have
maintained a ominous silence over a period of thirty one years i.e. between
16.09.1985 (the date of death of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji) and
15.10.2016 (the date when her statement was recorded by the Commission)
in respect of telling/informing people that Gumnami Baba aliasBhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. I am not prepared to accept her
explanation that she was silent because Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
[ 39 ]
wanted to conceal his identity. In my view, if that was the reason, she would
not have deposed before the Commission that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Secondly, her denial that she did not depose before the three
Commissions set up earlier, namely, Shahnawaz Commission, Khosla
Commission and Mukherjee Commission (though her husband deposed
before the Mukherjee Commission) hurts her credibility/ truthfulness/
reliability. A perusal of para 4.15.4 of the Mukherjee Commission report at
page 117 shows that Smt. Rita Banerjee was examined before it as CW-65
and her claim was based on a belief that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Her evidence, according to Mukherjee
Commissiion, did not assist the Commission in answering the issue whether
Gumnami Baba was Subhash Chandra Bose. Her denial in respect of
deposing before the Mukherjee Commission shows either she has a weak
memory or she was deliberately supressing the fact that she had deposed
before the Mukherjee Commission because before it she had stated that her
belief was that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose whereas before the present Commission she has deposed in
no uncertain terms that on a number of occasions she had seen/met
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and was convinced that he was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. In my view, any of the said conclusions lead to the
inference that it would be unsafe to accept her claim that Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Thirdly, her claim that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose is belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs
4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission
Report.
In view of the aforesaid infirmities, the claim of Smt.Rita Banerjee
that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose has
to be rejected without even an iota of doubt.
5.7 The next witness whose evidence I propose considering is CW-8
Prof.Dr.Dashrath Singh Tomar, aged about 65 years, son of late Ram Prasad
Singh, resident of 9/2/18, Terhi Bazar,Ayodhya district Faizabad. The
salient features which emerge from his evidence are as under:

[ 40 ]
 In 1977-78 he was practicing as a Homoeopathic doctor in Ayodhya.
At the said time an article appeared in Current Magazine, which was being
published from Bombay, mentioning whether the person who was living in
Ayodhya and hiding his identity was a CIA agent, or a saint or Subhash
Chandra Bose. On reading the said article it came in his mind that he should
visit the said person. As co-incidence would have it one Mahatma Saran,
who lived in Ayodhya and was engaged in wood-furniture business, one day
came to him and told him that he had to see a patient. When he told
Mahatma Saran that he should bring the patient to his clinic, Mahatma Saran
said that the patient did not visit anyone and he would have to examine him
at the place where he lived. He also told him that he shall be paid his fees-.
At about 9.00 p.m., after closing his clinic, he went to examine the said
patient at his residence. When he reached there (Lucknauwa Hata,Ayodhya),
he found Mahatma Saran present. - When he knocked at the gate of the
house, a lady came out ( her name was Jagdambey). The lady told him that
they call the person whom he was going to examine as Bhagwanji. When he
entered inside the gate, he found that there was a curtain on window of the
room in which Bhagwanji was sitting. While he was standing outside the
room, Bhagwanji in a roaring voice asked him his name. On his telling him
the same said that he was a Kshatriya and whether he had taken a stand
against any injustice and killed the person who had committed injustice.
Thereafter for half an hour he gave discourse on ideals and for about one
hour a speech on Parliament and law and order situation. After talking to
Bhagwanji he was convinced that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose. He then proceeded to examine Bhagwanji in the room. Bhagwanji
complained of fracture of femur bone and piles. For the former he
prescribed symphytem and for the latter acid nitric 200. Thereafter for three
years he visited Bhagwanji frequently in connection with his and
Jagdambey's illness. On such occasions Bhagwanji used to talk to him on
political and geographical subjects. Bhagwanji also used to lament about
lack of ideals in the country. After talking to Bhagwanji from time to time
on his political and administrative experience and hearing his roaring voice
he became convinced that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Bhagwanji did not meet anyone on 23rd January of the year.

[ 41 ]
 The witness was cross-examined by the Commission. The first
question put to him therein was that in 1977-78 he had gone to examine
Bhagwanji and his statement was being recorded on 15.10.2016, during the
period of 37 years what did he do to prove that Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. To the said question the witness replied that after
Bhagwanji died on 16.09.1985 he approached Mr.Pandey, the then District
Magistrate,Faizabad and told him on his enquiry whether Bhagwanji was
Subhash Chandra Bose that he was hundred per cent convinced that he was.
The second question put to the witness was between 1977-78 and his
meeting the District Magistrate what steps he took to prove that Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. To the said question the witness replied
that he did not make any special effort to prove that Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose excepting giving interview to the media.
In reply to the third question, which was whether he had seen
Subhash Chandra Bose, he replied in the negative. I am extracting his reply
in entirety:
" Ji nahi. Maine pahle kabhi Subhash Chandra Bose ko nahi
dekha tha. Main unki photo, unki awaz, unke saman our unki
adarshon ki baaton ke aadhar par kahta hoon ke Bhagwanji hi
Subhash Chandra Bose the."
The fourth question put to him in cross-examination was whether it
should be understood that between 1985-2000 he had not made any special
effort to prove that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He
replied in the affirmative in the following words:
"Ji haan. Maine vishesh prayas nahi kiya, lekin jo log mujhse
poochte the, main unko uprokt baten batata rahta tha."
To the fifth question, which was whether Bhagwanji had told him that
he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he replied that directly he had never
told him so but he did say that Netaji did not die in a plane crash and why
the Government does not get the DNA test of his ashes done.
I have carefully and thoughtfully perused the statement of
Dr. Dashrath Singh and am constrained to observe that I am not prepared to

[ 42 ]
accept his claim that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose for three
main reasons.
Firstly, the witness has candidly admitted that neither he had ever
seen Subhash Chandra Bose before nor Bhagwanji had himself told him that
he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The witness (as is apparent from
answer given by him to question no.3 during cross-examination) believed
that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose from his photo, voice,
ideals, the conversation which he had with him and the articles found in his
possession. In my view, from the aforesaid material it would be
hazardous/unsafe to conclude that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
Secondly, the claim of the witness that Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose is belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs
4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission
Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary in my view to advert to the said
paragraphs again.
Thirdly, the conduct of the witness does not inspire any confidence. A
perusal of his cross-examination and the answers given by him to the
questions put to him (to which I have referred to earlier) shows that from
1977-78 to 16th September,1985 (the date when Bhagwanji died) and from
1985 to 2000 apart from telling Mr.Pandey, District Magistrate,Faizabad
and Mr.Anuj Dhar that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he
had made no special effort to establish/prove that Bhagwanji was Subhash
Chandra Bose. In my view, this conduct of the witness was extremely
unnatural and casts a shadow of doubt on his veracity. The Supreme Court
of India, times out of number, has held that the conduct of a witness is very
material in determining his veracity and in coming to the conclusion
whether his evidence inspires confidence or not. In my view, had the
witness been convinced that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
he would have told all and sundry about it and not have maintained the sort
of silence which he did.

[ 43 ]
 Coupled with the conduct of the witness when it is borne in mind that
the belief of the witness that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
was based on facts which he had gathered in his contact with him in the year
1977/1978 and three years thereafter i.e. 38-35 years prior to 16.10.2016,
the date when he was examined by the Commission, probability of the
memory of the witness getting blurred and his imagining some of the things
which he has deposed about Bhagwanji cannot be ruled out.
For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, it would be unsafe to accept
the belief of Prof.Dr.Dashrath Singh that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
5.8. I now take up the evidence of CW-9 Ravindra Nath Shukla, son
of late Jagdish Prasad Shukla, aged about 57 years, resident of 867, Avas
Vikas Colony, Amaniganj, Faizabad. In short, his evidence reads as under:
In 1976-1977 he used to visit Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who
at that time was residing in Lucknauwa Hata in Ayodhya. For the first time
he visited him alongwith Dr.Virendra Rai. When he met Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji, the latter enquired from him as to why he had come and
told him that people call me a CIA agent/Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose/ a
detective, who had run away from another country. Bhagwanji asked him
what he thought about his identity. On this, he told Bhagwanji that since he
lived behind a curtain and did not meet anyone, it was natural for people to
think that he was either a CIA agent or Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose or a
detective who had run away from another country. Thereafter he started
visiting Bhagwanji and continued visiting him till 16.09.1985, the date of
his death. The witness filed a elaborate written statement with the request
that it be taken on record and read as a part of his statement. The
Commission took the said written statement on record, marked it as Ext.C-7
for identification and directed that it shall be read as a part of his statement.
The evidence of Ravindra Nath Shukla further shows that every year
on 23rd January, which was birthday of Bhagwanji and in both the Durga
Poojas people from Calcutta used to visit Bhagwanji and he alongwith
others used to make arrangements for their stay. One of the persons who
visited him was Sri Pranav Mukherjee, who presently is the President of
India. People from 12/13 families of Faizabad used to come to meet

[ 44 ]
Bhagwanji and one of them was Dr. R.P.Misra and his wife. From about 7/8
months prior to his death, food for Bhagwanji used to come from the house
of Dr.R.P.Misra. Before that Mataji (Saraswati Devi Shukla) used to cook
his food.
The evidence of Ravindra Nath Shukla further shows that on
16.09.1985 after having food Bhagwanji suddenly fell ill and despite
medical aid administered by Dr. R.P.Misra and Dr. Banerjee, died the same
night at 9.25 p.m. After Bhagwanji's death Dr.R.P.Misra and Mr.Arvind
Singh said that they would send news of his death to Calcutta by asking the
SSP to send a wireless but it transpired that they did not approach the SSP.
Since it was summer season and there was a fear that the body of Bhagwanji
may decompose, on 18th September,1985 last rites of Bhagwanji were
performed at Guptar Ghat,Faizabad. Thereafter Dr. R.P.Misra started taking
the belongings of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji to his house. On this the
witness and others objected and said that till the time people from Calcutta
came (Dr.Pabitra Mohan Roy and Santosh Bhattacharya used to visit
Bhagwanji) the belongings of Bhagwanji should not be removed and be
locked in a room in Ram Bhawan. Then in a room in Ram Bhawan the
belongings of Bhagwanji were locked. On 19.09.1985 he alongwith
Dr.Virendra Rai visited the house of Dr.Pabitra Mohan Roy, met him and
his wife and the latter showed them a photo of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
and asked them, was he the person, who had died. On this they replied in the
affirmative. Dr.Pabitra Mohan Roy and his wife told them that they had
known him since he was in Rangoon. They also told them to keep his
belongings safely and said that they would come soon. However, when they
did not come, for a second time he and Dr.Virendra Rai accompanied by
Dr.Banerjee went to Calcutta and met Dr.Pabitra Mohan Roy and Santosh
Bhattacharya, who said that they would come but they did not come. Later
on their niece Leela Roy came and an inventory of the belongings of
Bhagwanji was prepared.
The witness was cross-examined by the Commission. In all 8
questions were put to him therein.
To question No.1,which was, who in his opinion Bhagwanji was, he
replied that in his view he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

[ 45 ]
 To question No.2, which was, what was the basis for his view, he
replied that his belief was based on the conversation which he and others
had over years with Bhagwanji and also on the photo which Dr.Pabitra
Mohan Roy's wife had shown him at Calcutta.
To question No.3,which was, whether before today he had apprised
any official that Bhagwanji was Subhash Chandra Bose, the witness replied
that he had mentioned this fact to the Justice M.K.Mukherjee Commission
in the year 2002-2003.
To question No.4, which was, whether between 16.09.1985 (the date
on which Bhagwanji died) and the year 2002-2003 when Mukherjee
Commission recorded his statement, he told any officer or anyone else that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Subhash Chandra Bose, he replied that
during the said period he had not told this fact to anyone.
I have perused the statement of Ravindra Nath Shukla and the written
statement Ext.C-7 filed by him. I am constrained to observe that I do not
find any merit in his belief that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose for three main reasons.
Firstly, a perusal of the answer given by the witness to Question No.2
shows that his belief was based on the conversation which he had with
Bhagwanji over the years and on the photo which wife of Dr. Pabitra Mohan
Roy had shown him in Calcutta (she had shown him the photo of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose). The witness was examined as CW-61 before the
Mukherjee Enquiry Commission and the said Commission in Para 4.15.2 of
its report at page 115 has observed that he and some others had admitted
before it that they had not seen Gumnami Baba.
In my view, since before the Mukherjee Commission the witness had
admitted that he had not seen Gumnami Baba, I fail to understand how on
seeing the photo of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose at Calcutta he could
conclude that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Secondly, the claim of the witness that Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose is belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs
4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the M.K.Mukherjee
Commissioin Report.

[ 46 ]
 Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the M.K.Mukherjee
Commission Report in Para 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of Anuj
Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary,in my view,to advert to the said paragraphs
again.
Thirdly, the conduct of the witness is a serious impediment in
accepting his claim that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. As seen earlier in answer to question No.4 the
witness admitted that between the death of Gumnami Baba ( it took place on
16.09.1985) and his statement before the Mukherjee Commission (it was
recorded in the year 2002-2003) he did not give any statement to any official
or tell anyone that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. This silence on the part of the witness for over sixteen years
is ominous and casts grave doubts on the genuineness of his claim that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
In my view, had the witness really believed that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose he would have been sharing
this belief of his with all and sundry.
It may be mentioned that the Supreme Court, times out of number
solely on account of the conduct of a witness in not disclosing an
incident/fact to others at the earliest, had disbelieved a witness.
For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, it would not be safe to accept
the belief of Ravindra Nath Shukla that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
5.9 The next witness whose evidence I propose evaluating is CW-
10Ashok Tandon,aged about 65 years, son of late Nanak Chand Tandon,
resident of 9, MIG, Laxmanpuri Colony,Faizabad. The salient features
which emerge from his evidence are twofold:-
(a) he never met Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji (this is evident from
the answer which he gave to question No.4 during cross-examination); and
(b) on the basis of circumstantial evidence, his conclusion is that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The evidence of Ashok Tandon, in short, shows as under:

[ 47 ]
 In 1985 he was the Editor of a local newspaper. On 18.09.1985 he
received news that an unknown saint who was living in Ram Bhawan had
died and was secretly cremated at Guptar Ghat and till his cremation people
were not allowed to see his face. They thought that he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. He did not believe the news and asked his correspondent not
to publish it but in view of the information which he started getting, he
started investigating about the identity of the unknown saint and in due
course reached the conclusion that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He
published his conclusion in an elaborate write-up dated 28.10.1985. On the
said date, the City Magistrate in the presence of some people (including
him) opened the lock of the room in Ram Bhawan in which the belongings
of the unknown saint were kept. He found that there was a huge collection
of literature and some other articles. Some days after 28th October,1985 Sub
Inspector Harish Chandra Singh prepared an inventory of the belongings of
Gumnami Baba which included huge literature in English, Hindi and Bangla
and a large number of papers connected with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Thereafter pursuant to the orders of the High Court passed in a writ petition
preferred by Lalita Bose (niece of Subhash Chandra Bose), Satya Narain
Singh Satya, an Advocate was appointed a Commissioner and in his
presence continuously for 13 months an elaborate inventory of the
belongings of Gumnami Baba was prepared. Since he (the witness) was a
junior of Mr. Singh at that time, he was present alongwith Mr. Singh during
the entire time in which the inventory was prepared. On the basis of material
seen by him, he reached the following conclusion:
(1) Bhagwanji alias Gumnami Baba was a Bengali;
(2) Bhagwanji was a very well-read man and had a good knowledge
about international politics and war tactics;
(3) Most of the letters which were found were in Bangla and English.
Amongst them were letters sent by Prof.Samar Guha, Dr.Pabitra Mohan
Roy, Vishwanath Roy, Amal Roy, Jagjit Das, Ashutosh Kali,Smt.Basanti
Devi, Kaushal Kishore, Amlendu Ghose, Sunil Krishna Gupta, Atul Krishna
Gupta, Trilok Nath Chakravarty, Sadhan Chandra Das, Shailendra Kumar,
Nand Lal Chakravarty, Santosh Kumar Bhattacharya, Jagat Jitendra, Bhoop
Bahadur, Surjeet, Tarun Kumar Mukherjee, Mihir Das and Shaila Sen. From

[ 48 ]
their perusal it appeared that the said persons were either members of the
Indian National Army created by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose or belonged
to some revolutionary groups or were volunteers;
(4) From reading the letters sent by the said persons and Smt.Leela
Roy ( an ardent disciple of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose) it appeared to him
(the witness) that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose but
from a perusal of the letters it was clear that there was no indication by the
said persons that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose;
(5) On 23rd January which was birthday of Gumnami Baba people
from Calcutta with sweets etc. used to come and on the said date no local
person was allowed to visit him;
(6) The belongings of Gumnami Baba included Books on War with
China and some of them contained his comments also;
(7) Both in correspondence and in personal conversation Gumnami
Baba was never addressed as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He was
addressed as "Shri Charneshu", "Shradha Spadeshu" and "Swamiji";
(8) Leela Roy first came in contact with Gumnami Baba in 1963
while he was in Neemsar,Sitapur. She used to make available all the articles
required by him. A list was sent to her and in one of the lists, it was
mentioned 'photo of mother and father' ( it was not mentioned whose mother
and father) Leela Roy sent to him photos of Janaki Nath Bose and
Smt.Prabhawati Devi, father and mother respectively of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. As a protest to the Khosla Commission Report, Suresh
Chandra Bose (brother of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose) wrote a book
'Decendent Report'. A copy of the said book was sent to Gumnami Baba and
on the first page of the copy was written "Param kalaneeya devar
chiranjiveshu - Pranadhik sneh ashirvad" but neither the name of the person
to whom this message was sent was mentioned nor the name of the person
who had sent it was mentioned. However, while the inventory was being
prepared Lalita Bose (niece of Subhash Chandra Bose) said that the writing
in Bengali was of her mother;
(9) Dr. Pabitra Mohan Roy, who was an officer in Azad Hind Fauj,
wrote to Gumnami Baba you are my intelligence officer, without fear or
favour must …………………………….;
[ 49 ]
 (10) Vishwanath Roy wrote a letter to Gumnami Baba mentioning
the day he came in 1923 alongwith Deshbandhu and Gumnami Baba gave a
speech in connection with Vidhan Sabha elections he decided that he was
his Guru;
(11) A small slip was found wherein in Bangla it was mentioned
"Harirpurar theke Vellington Square porjonto ja chhotey chhilo to jodi na
ghotto tahono jeebanta hayto onyodike mor nito" ( In English it means that
if what happened between Haripura and Vellington had not happened then
life could have gone in a different direction). At Haripura Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose was elected as Congress President and in Vellington he
resigned from the said post.
The evidence of Ashok Tandon shows that in view of the aforesaid
circumstantial evidence he believed that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
Mr.Ashok Tandon has also filed a written compilation, a book on
Gumnami Baba and a book called Ganga Patrika with the request that they
be taken on record and the contents therein be read as a part of his
statement. The Commission acceded to the request of the witness; took
aforesaid documents on record; marked them as Exts. C-8,C-9 and C-10 for
identification; and directed that the contents therein will be read as a part of
the statement of the witness.
Sri Ashok Tandon was cross-examined by the Commission.
In answer to the first question, which was, who he thought was
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, he replied that his investigation revealed
that all those who came in contact with Gumnami Baba thought him to be
Subhash Chandra Bose and he after perusing all the letters and evidences
also reached the inference that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
In answer to the second question, which was, whether there was any
additional basis for his reaching the aforesaid conclusion, he replied that in
society there was a general belief that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose and the conduct of his disciples in first maintaining
confidentiality and later on saying that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
made him believe that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

[ 50 ]
 In reply to question No.3, which was, whether he had informed any
officer or anybody that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
he replied that he was a journalist and conformed to the ethics of journalism
and from time to time in his writings and books mentioned this inference of
his. He also stated that he had deposed before the Mukherjee Commission,
had helped all those who came to him in connection with discovering the
identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and gave some writing samples
of Gumnami Baba to a budding journalist Mr.Anuj Dhar,which were sent to
Mr.Lal, a handwriting expert, who gave positive report and sent a copy of it
to him.
Question No.4 put to him was whether he had ever met Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji. In reply to it he emphatically denied having met him.
I have perused the statement of Mr.Ashok Tandon and the
documentary evidence filed by him (Exts.C-8,C-9 and C-10) and in my view
it would be unsafe to accept his inference that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. As seen earlier, he candidly admitted that he had
never met him and his inference was based on circumstantial evidence. For
three reasons I am not inclined to accept his inference.
Firstly, his claim that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose is belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs
4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission
Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission report in entirety in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the
evidence of Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary, in my view, to advert to
the said paragraphs again.
Secondly, a perusal of the statement of Mr.Ashok Tandon shows that
his belief that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose was largely based on information which he had derived from others. In
my view, such information falls in the category of 'hearsay evidence', is a
nullity in law; and cannot be a basis for drawing the inference that Gumnami
Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Thirdly, the claim of the witness that since some of the letters and
books recovered from Ram Bhawan,Faizabad have connection with Netaji
[ 51 ]
Subhash Chandra Bose, it follows as a logical imperative that the person
residing in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
cannot be accepted in view of the DNA report referred to earlier. Even
otherwise, merely because some of the letters and books recovered from
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad relate to Subhash Chandra Bose, it does not mean
that it was Subhash Chandra Bose who was living there. Their recovery is
also compatible with the inference of another person living there. It is well-
settled in law that an inference can only be reached on circumstantial
evidence if four requirements are met:
(i) circumstances are firmly established;
(ii) they unerringly lead to the inference sought to be drawn;
(iii) they are wholly inconsistent with any other inference;
(iv) they are incapable of being explained on any other reasonable
hypothesis.
I make no bones in observing that if the aforesaid four requirements
are kept in mind, the circumstantial evidence on which the witness has based
his inference that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose is clearly insufficient.
Before parting with the evidence of the witness, I would like to
mention that although handwriting expert Mr.Lal gave a positive report in
respect of the handwriting samples of Gumnami Baba which the witness
gave to Mr.Anuj Dhar, who in turn sent them to Mr.Lal, who also sent a
copy of his report to the witness, the said report cannot be taken as a
conclusive proof of the fact that handwriting samples were of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose because three other experts, namely, Mr.Amar
Singh, Mr. M.L.Sharma and Mr. S.K.Mondal, who were examined by
Mukherjee Enquiry Commission, gave a contrary opinion. This aspect has
been dealt with by Justice M.K.Mukherjee Enquiry Commission in para
4.15.9 at page 121 of its report. I am extracting the aforesaid Para in
entirety:
" The reports of the experts to whom the handwritings appearing in
some books and journals found in 'Ram Bhawan' were sent for comparison
with the admitted handwritings of Netaji materially differ. While one of .

[ 52 ]
them viz. Shri B.Lal, Ex-Government Examiner of Questioned Documents,
New Delhi ( CW-119) has given a firm opinion that those (both Bengali and
English) were of Netaji, Shri Amar Singh and Shri M.L.Sharma (CW 121) of
the Office of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents,
Government of India, Simla, who have filed a joint report, and
Dr. S.K.Mondal of Forensic Laboratory, Government of West Bengal,
Kolkata (CW-120) have given a contrary opinion. Such divergent opinion
and any evidence from any person conversant with the handwriting of Netaji
that the questioned writings were of Netaji is another impediment to the safe
acceptance of the oral version given in this regard."
For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, it would not be safe to accept
the belief of Ashok Tandon that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
5.10 The next witness whose evidence I propose analyzing is CW-11
Ayodhya Prasad Gupta, aged about 90 years son of late Sooraj Lal, resident
of village Jainagra, Post Office Bargaon, district Gonda. His evidence, in
short, shows as under:
He was a Sepoy in Azad Hind Fauj(Indian National Army) of
Subhash Chandra Bose; the story of plane crash at Formosa is a tissue of lies
and the Japanese in the year 1945 safely left Netaji alongwith his belongings
in Russia; twice Pandit Nehru met Netaji in Russia and asked him to come
to India; at Nehru's behest Netaji came to India; between 1965 - 1970; he
(Netaji) stayed in Shoulmari Ashram, where in 1966 the witness met him;
between 1970-1972 he stayed at Naimisharanya where the witness met him
for the second time; between 1972-1979 he stayed in Basti in the compound
of Raja Saheb's bungalow; between 1980-1982 he stayed at Lucknauwa
Kothi in Ayodhya ; between 1982-1985 he stayed at Ram Bhawan in Civil
Lines, Faizabad where he died on 16.09.1985 at 6.00 p.m.; on 23rd January
every year his birthday was celebrated; on that date he used to put on the
uniform of Azad Hind Fauj and hoist the flag; on the said date members of
his family used to come from Calcutta and distribute sweets and clothes etc.
to the poor; one Saraswati Devi Shukla whom Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji called as Jagdambey used to stay with him; she did all domestic
work and looked after his needs.

[ 53 ]
 The evidence of witness also shows that he met Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose alias Gumnami Baba in Ram Bhawan who instantly
recognized him. His evidence further shows that Netaji considered politics
to be a dirty affair and rejected his suggestion to take any political post.
The witness also stated that he received summons from Mukherjee
Commission to give evidence in Calcutta, in response to which he went to
Calcutta and gave evidence.
The witness was cross-examined by the Commission.
In response to question No.1 which was when he used to meet Netaji
what conversation he had with him, he replied that he used to ask him to
join politics but Netaji used to tell him " Ab mujhe yog karna hai our
bhagwat bhajan karna hai" .
In response to question No.2 which was prior to deposing before the
Mukherjee Commission, did he disclose to any officer/organisation that
Bhagwanji alias Gumnami Baba was Subhash Chandra Bose, he replied that
a number of times he had told the District Magistrate and Superintendent of
Police about it but he had no written evidence to back his claim. He also
stated that he had written a book on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in which
he had mentioned this fact.
In response to question No.3 which was in which year he had written
the book, he replied that he wrote it in 1986 because Netaji had directed him
to write a book about him(which should be widely distributed). He also
stated that Netaji had asked him to make a film on him(Netaji), if possible.
In reply to the last question which was that since Netaji was such a
fearless person why did he conceal his identity on his return to India, he
stated that there was an agreement between Pandit Nehru and British
Government(which was valid till 2002) that Netaji dead or alive should be
handed over to the British Government.
I have perused the statement of Ayodhya Prasad Gupta in the
background of terms of reference by which this Commission was created by
the Uttar Pradesh Government, vide its notification dated 28.06.2016.A
perusal of the said notification, as seen earlier, shows that the Governor of
Uttar Pradesh has directed the Commission to find out the identity of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad prior
[ 54 ]
to his death and whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985. The claim
of the witness that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who lived in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad between 1982-1985 (where he died on 16.09.1985) was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is unworthy of acceptance because it is belied
by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121
and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary in my view to advert to the said
paragraphs again.
Apart from the above, I have no compunction in observing that
Ayodhya Prasad Gupta is not a truthful witness. In his statement, he has
candidly stated that he gave evidence before the Mukherjee Commission at
Calcutta. I have perused the Mukherjee Commission Report and find that
there is no mention/discussion about his evidence in it. I have also perused
Appendix No.1 of the Mukherjee Commission Report which contains a list
of witnesses examined by the Commission. Its perusal shows that 131
witnesses were examined by the Commission and the name of Ayodhya
Prasad Gupta does not figure in the list.
Once it is accepted that Ayodhya Prasad Gupta was not examined
before the Mukherjee Commission then it becomes clear that between
16.09.1985 (the date of death of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji) and
25.10.2016 (the date when he was examined by this Commission), he did
not give any statement to any authority that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Since the witness has no regard for the
truth, I am not inclined to accept his claim that he orally told the District
Magistrate and Superintendent of Police about this fact and mentioned about
it in a book. It is pertinent to mention that he did not file a copy of his book
before the Commission.
The Supreme Court, times out of number, has said that non disclosure
of an incident/fact by a witness for a considerable time casts grave doubt on
the credibility of a witness. In my view, had the witness been really
convinced that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, he would have been telling all and sundry about this fact.

[ 55 ]
 I also do not find the statement of Ayodhya Prasad Gupta to be in
consonance with probabilities which is a time honoured yardstick for
measuring the credibility of a witness. In cross-examination at one place the
witness statedthat when he asked Netaji to accept an office, he replied that
" Ab mujhe yog karna hai our bhagwat bhajan karna hai".
If this was true then in my view Netaji would never have asked him to
make a film on him ( Netaji) . Netaji is alleged to have told him, if possible,
to make a film on him.
Again the claim of the witness that every year on 23rd January Netaji
used to put on uniform of Azad Hind Fauj and hoist flag is per se unworthy
of acceptance because not only no other witness has stated about it but also
because the almost consistent evidence which has come before Commission
is that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji never used to talk face to face with
people. He used to talk from inside a room which had a window on which
there was a curtain and the person/persons to whom he used to talk to
was/were on the other side of the window. If such was the precaution which
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji took to conceal his identity, in my view, it
sounds ridiculous that he would put on clothes of Azad Hind Fauj on his
birthday and then unfurl flag.
All that I can say is that Ayodhya Prasad Gupta is a witness who has a
scant regard for truth; has a fertile imagination; and it is impossible to sift
untruth from truth and fantasy from reality in his statement. Such a witness,
in my view, cannot be relied upon.
For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, it would not be safe to accept
the belief of Ayodhya Prasad Gupta that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
5.11 The next witness who appeared before the Commission was
CW-12 Krishna Kumar,aged about 33 years, son of late Nanku Ram Yadav,
resident of AH 3/7, Amrapali Yojna, near Dubagga Power House,Lucknow.
His evidence shows as under :
In his understanding Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose but the corpse which was burnt on 18.09.1985 was not of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. He stated that he has mentioned the said things in a

[ 56 ]
written compilation which he requested should be taken on record and read
as a part of his evidence.
The Commission acceded to the request of the witness; took the said
compilation on record; marked it as Ext.C-11 for identification; and directed
that it will be read as a part of his statement.
A perusal of Ext.C-11 shows that the witness has concluded that
Gumnami Baba was Subhash Chandra Bose on account of a large number of
books and articles etc. pertaining to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose having
been recovered from the room in Ram Bhawan in which Gumnami Baba
used to live prior to his death.
I am afraid, merely from this circumstance it cannot be inferred that
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was living in the room from which the
aforesaid articles were recovered. The said recovery is equally compatible
with the inference that someone else may have been living in the room from
which the aforesaid recovery was made.
The claim of the witness that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who
lived in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad between 1982-1985 (where he died on
16.09.1985) was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is unworthy of acceptance
because it is belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs 4.15.10 and
4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary in my view to advert to the said
paragraphs again.
I am also not inclined to believe the statement of the witness that the
corpse which was burnt on 18.09.1985 was not of Gumnami Baba whom the
witness believed was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose because the
overwhelming evidence which has been led before the Commission is that
the corpse which was cremated on 18.09.1985 was of Gumnami Baba.
As a matter of fact, the evidence of Krishna Kumar has to be excluded
from consideration because the notification of the U.P.Government dated
28.06.2016 by which the Commission was constituted provides that it shall
find out the identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji,who prior to his
death lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose dead body was cremated
[ 57 ]
on 18.09.1985 but the inference which follows from his statement is that the
corpse which was burnt on 18.09.1985 was not of Gumnami Baba.For the
aforesaid reasons, I do not accept Krishna Kumar's claim of Gumnami Baba
being Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.12 The next witness whose evidence I propose evaluating is CW-13
Rakesh Srivastava, aged about 43 years, son of Kailash Bihari, grandson of
Mahan Deshbhakt Ram Swarath Lal, resident of House No.14/60 Yaman
Sahara Estate, Jankipuram, Lucknow. His evidence shows as under:
His grandfather Ram Swarath Lal was a Lieutenant in Azad Hind
Fauj and was a resident of village Pathkhauli in district Basti; so far as his
memory goes when he was about 10/12 years of age, he used to visit
Pathkhauli; sometimes at his grandfather's place, in Pathkhauli, he used to
see 4/5 people, who came from Ayodhya and looked like saints, they were
of a quiet disposition and did not talk to anyone; they were in touch with his
grandfather Ram Swarath Lal; his grandfather Ram Swarath Lal sometimes
used to go to Ayodhya and stay with them; when he enquired from his
grandfather about them he gave no information; when he and members of
the family enquired from him (grandfather) about Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose, he used to say that he was alive but he could not tell them where he
was.
From the aforesaid facts, the witness concluded that Gumnami Baba
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The witness also stated that since family members of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, who used to live in Calcutta were close to Nehruji, Subhash
Chandra Bose used to prefer staying in Uttar Pradesh.
I have perused the statement of the witness and in my view there is no
legal basis for the witness to conclude that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose because according to the witness from the
information which he derived from his grandfather he concluded that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and since this
information would fall in the category of hearsay evidence it would be
legally inadmissible.
Consequently, I have no hesitation in rejecting the claim of Rakesh
Srivastava that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
[ 58 ]
 5.13 The next in line of witnesses examined by the Commission was
CW-14 Uma Charan Pandey,aged about 73 years, son of late Radha Kant
Pandey, resident of village Kaithi, P.O.Kaithi district Varanasi. In short, his
evidence shows as under:
His belief is that Gumnami Baba, who used to live in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad prior to his death and whose last rites were performed on
18.09.1985 in Faizabad was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Swami
Shardanand who used to reside in an Ashram in Phalakata district
Coochbihar, West Bengal was in fact Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. In 1965
two incidents took place in his presence. The first incident pertained to
Dwijendra Bose,nephew of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose meeting Swami
Shardanand in the Ashram.
Initially Swami Shardanand was not ready to meet him but three days
later in his presence(presence of the witness) he met him in the prayer hall
of the Ashram but there was a screen between Swami Shardanand and
Dwijendra Bose on account of which both could not see one another. Swami
Shardanand asked Dwijendra whether he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
on which Dwijendra replied if he was not why there was a screen between
both of them. When Dwijendra told Swami Shardanand that he was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose, Swami Shardanand reprimanded him and said that
he(Dwijendra) belonged to a good family and it did not befit him to find out
whether he was Subhash Chandra Bose or not and thereafter added that he
(Swami Shardanand) had no connection with the family of Janki Nath Bose
(Janki Nath Bose was the father of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose).
The evidence of Uma Charan Pandey shows that he deposed about
another incident which also took place in the year 1965. Deposing about it
he stated that in his presence Mr.N.D.Majumdar,who was legal advisor to
the Ashram, enquired from Swami Shardanand whether Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose was alive on which Swami Shardanand replied that he was
alive. When N.D.Majumdar asked Swami Shardanand where Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose was, he said he may be somewhere. Swami Shardanand also
emphatically denied about Netaji's death in a plane crash and said that
actually there was no plane crash.

[ 59 ]
 I have perused the statement of Uma Charan Pandey and am not
inclined to accept his claim that Swami Shardanand was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose because in his presence Swami Shardanand told Dwijendra
Bose that he had no connection with the family of Janki Nath Bose(Janki
Nath Bose was the father of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose). And who can
dispute that the best evidence whether Swami Shardanand was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose would be of Swami Shardanand himself.
Once it is established that Swami Shardanand was not Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, it follows as a logical imperative that the information which
Swami Shardanand gave to N.D.Majumdar, in the presence of the witness,
in terms, that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was alive and did not die in a
plane crash would fall in the category of hearsay evidence and would be a
nullity in law.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am not prepared to accept the claim of
Uma Charan Pandey that Swami Shardanand was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
5.14. I now take up the evidence of CW-15Aditya Nath Pandey, aged
about 70 years, son of late Shobh Nath Pandey, resident of village Kaithi,
P.O.Kaithi, district Varanasi. He stated that he did not know Gaumnami
Baba, who prior to his death lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last
rites were performed on 18.09.1985 in Faizabad. However, his belief (as
mentioned by him in his examination-in-chief before the Commission) was
that one Baba (he later learnt he was Swami Shardanand) who had visited
his village Kaithi in 1953-1954 a number of times and thereafter shifted to
Shoulmari Ashram in Coochbehar was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I have given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid belief of the
witness and have no hesitation in rejecting it because in his examination-in-
chief itself he has stated that when on learning about the death of Swami
Shardanand in Dehradun in 1977 he alongwith others went to Dehradun,
they learnt that Baba was in fact Swami Shardanand and Swami Shardanand
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. This makes it mainfest that the claim of
the witness that Swami Shardanand was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was
based on the information which he and others had received at Dehradun and

[ 60 ]
since the said information would fall in the category of hearsay evidence, I
have no compunction in rejecting it.
5.15 I now take up the evidence of CW-16 Shyam Lal Singh,aged
about 77 years, son of late Jhillu Singh, resident of village Kaithi, P.O.
Kaithi, district Varanasi. His evidence shows as under:
He did not know Gumnami Baba who, prior to his death, lived in
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985;
in 1951 a saint, who knew Krishna Kant Pandey, came to village Kaithi and
stayed there for about two months in a cave by the side of river Ganges; a
number of people used to come to meet him and soon a rumour started
spreading that the saint was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose; after living for
two months in the cave, he (the witness)learnt that the saint had left for
Shoulmari Ashram in West Bengal; on receiving the said information people
from village Kaithi used to visit Shoulmari Ashram to meet the saint; in
1958 he(the witness) left for Bombay and thereafter had no information
pertianing to the said saint; his belief was that the saint was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
During cross-examination a single question was put to the witness,
namely, whether between 1958 (when he left for Bombay) and
7.11.2016(the date when he was examined by the Commission) he had
disclosed to anyone that the saint was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. To the
said question, he replied that during this gap of 59 years he had not told
anyone that the saint was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I have perused the statement of Shyam Lal Singh and after bestowing
my anxious consideration on his belief that the saint was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, I am constrained to observe that I do not find any merit in his
aforesaid belief for two reasons: firstly, because apart from a rumour that the
saint was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose there was no tangible evidence on
which the belief of the witness was based and secondly, if the witness was
really convinced that the saint was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he would
not have maintained an ominous silence for 59 years i.e. between 1958
(when he left for Bombay) and 7.11.2016 (when his statement was recorded
by the Commission) about the fact that the saint was Netaji Subhash

[ 61 ]
Chandra Bose. Instead during this period he would have been telling all and
sundry that the saint was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am not prepared to accept the claim of
Shyam Lal Singh that the saint, who lived in Kaithi and thereafter went to
Shoulmari Ashram, was Netaji Susbhash Chandra Bose.
5.16 I now take up the evidence of Vishram Singh, aged about 91
years, and Ram Shanker Singh alias Lallan Singh, aged about 93 years, both
residents of Village Kaithi, P.O.Kaithi, district Varanasi. Both of them have
sent affidavits to the Commission mentioning therein that on account of
their ages and physical incapacity they were not in a position to give
evidence before the Commission and their affidavits which have been sworn
before a Notary, be treated as their statements.
Since I found the request of Vishram Singh and Ram Shanker Singh
to be reasonable, I marked the affidavit of Vishram Singh as CW-17 and
that of Ram Shanker Singh as CW-18. I am treating the facts stated in their
affidavits as their statement.
Since almost the same facts have been stated by CW-17 Vishram
Singh and CW-18 Ram Shanker Singh in their affidavits, I am disposing of
statements of both these witnesses together. Both these witnesses, who
belong to village Kaithi, have stated that in the year 1951 one Shardanandji
started staying in a cave by the side of river Ganges. The arrangements for
him were made by one Krishna Kant Pandey. Influential people of the
nearby localities started meeting Shardanandji. When in due course of time
a rumour was spread that Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
he left Kaithi but came back again for some time to Kaithi in 1952.
Thereafter he went to Shoulmari Ashram in West Bengal and from there to
Dehradun,where he died in 1977. In their affidavits, both Vishram Singh
and Ram Shanker Singh have stated that they were categorical in their belief
that Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I have perused the affidavits of the aforesaid witnesses (which I am
treating as their statement) and am constrained to observe that I am not
prepared to accept the claim of Vishram Singh and Ram Shanker Singh that
Shardanandji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Earlier in Para 7.13 I have
dealt with the statement of CW-14 Uma Charan Pandey in whose presence
[ 62 ]
Swami Shardanandji told Dwijendra Bose, nephew of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, that he (Swami Shardanandji) had no connection with the
family of Janaki Nath Bose(Janaki Nath Bose was the father of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose). And who can dispute that the best evidence
whether Swami Shardanand was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose would be of
Swami Shardanand himself .
The second reason why I am not inclined to accept the claim of
Vishram Singh and Ram Shanker Singh that Swami Shardanand was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose is because in the report of Mukherjee Commission in
Paragraph 4.13.3 at pages 109 and 110 it is mentioned that in the presence
of CW-81 Rajat Kanti Bhadra, CW-82 Deen Bandhu Dutta, and CW-83
Nikhil Chandra Ghatak, Sadhu, who was living in Shoulmari Ashram, West
Bengal and was known as Shardanandji categorically stated that Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose was born in wedlock of Janaki Nath Bose and
Bivawati Bose and he was born in a Brahmin family of East Bengal.
It is pertinent to mention that a perusal of Paragraph 4.13.4 of the
Mukherjee Commission report shows that Dr.Pabitra Mohan Roy (KW-176)
and Surendra Mohan Ghose (KW-154) stated before the Khosla
Commission that the Sadhu had told them that he was not Netaji and the son
of Janaki Nath Bose.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to believe the claim of
Vishram Singh CW-17 and Ram Shanker Singh CW-18 that Swami
Shardanand was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.17 I now propose taking up the evidence of CW-19 Smt. Amita
Singh,aged about 47 years, wife of Rajiv Singh, resident of 34/702,NRI
Complex, Nirul, Navi Mumbai-400706. Her evidence in short shows as
under:
During last part of 1978 or the begining of 1979 when her father was
posted as Chief Chemist in Ramkola Sugar Mills, Deoria, Bhagwanji once
visited her house; at that time she was aged about 8-9 years; when she
returned from school she found Bhagwanji giving discourse to 15/20 people;
when those persons went away she alongwith her brother and sister
respectfully greeted him; Bhagwanji asked her whether she knew Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose on which she replied that he had given the slogan
[ 63 ]
"Tum mujhe khoon do main tumhe azadi doonga". Bhagwanji had meals at
her house; spent the night in her drawing-cum-guest room and next morning
went away.
The evidence of Amita Singh shows that this year (2016) she saw an
old photograph of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in which he was not
wearing a cap, dhoti, kurta and putting on a shawl and seeing it she became
convinced that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who had come to her house
in Deoria in the end of 1978 or the begining of 1979 was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
Amita Singh was cross-examined by the Commission. Three
questions were put to her therein. The first was that she had stated that in the
end of 1978 or the begining of 1979 Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji had
come to her house and this year (2016) after seeing an old photo of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose she became convinced that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhgwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. To the said question she
replied in affirmative.
The second question put to her was whether from her aforesaid
answer the Commission should construe that for the first time in 2016 she
realised that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose. To the said question she also answered in the affirmative.
The third question put to her was that from her aforesaid answer the
conclusion which emerged was thatafter about 37 years she remembered the
features of Bhagwanji. To this she also replied in the affirmative.
I have thoughtfully perused the statement of Amita Singh and in my
view it would not be safe to accept her claim that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. A perusal of her statement
shows that when she was aged about 8-9 years, Bhagwanji had come to her
house and 37 years later i.e. in the year 2016 after seeing his photo she
became convinced that Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. In my
opinion, after 37 years she could not have remembered the features of
Bhagwanji alias Gumnami Baba, (which she had observed as a child aged
about 8-9 years), on the basis of which on seeing the photo of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose in 2016 she concluded that Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
[ 64 ]
 5.18 I now propose examining the evidence of CW-20 Madan Mohan
Tripathi,aged about 65 years, son of late Hriday Ram Tripathi, resident of
Shiv Nagar Colony, Paharganj,Faizabad. His evidence shows as under:
He runs a school by the name of Bal Vidya Mandir; long time back
one Ram Sewak Malviya was working as an Assistant Teacher in his school;
one day Ram Sewak Malviya told him that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
lives in Ayodhya and he should accompany him(Ram Sewak Malviya) to
meet him(Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose); he told Ram Sewak Malviya that
since once Baba Jai Gurudev had promised that he would produce Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose but had failed, he had no faith in what he(Ram
Sewak Malviya) was saying and consequently would not go to Ayodhya;
even thereafter on a number of occassions Ram Sewak Malviya asked him
to accompany him(Ram Sewak Malviya) to Ayodhya but he declined;Ram
Sewak Malviya also told him that he had given his Book 'Bhubhamini
Vibharamam' to the unknown saint who had told him that he (Malviyaji) had
praised Jawahar Lal Nehru in it on which he replied that he had also praised
him (Subhash Chandra Bose); on that Subhash Chandra Bose started
smiling.
When after his death the issue of Gumnami Baba came up for
discussion and he (the witness) asked Malviyaji whether he was the same
saint whom he (Malviyaji) wanted him to meet in Ayodhya, Malviyaji gave
him a write-up of two pages titiled 'Gumnami Mahatama Se Mera Sampark',
which he (the witness) filed before the Commission desiring that the same
be taken on record and be treated as a part of his statement. The
Commission took the aforesaid write-up on record; marked it as Ext.C-12
for identification; and directed that it shall be read as a part of his statement.
The witness also stated that Malviyaji is not alive.
A perusal of Ext.C-12 shows that it contains details pertaining to
various meetings which took place between Ram Sewak Malviya and
Gumnami Baba, during the years 1976-1978, in Ayodhya. It also shows that
as a consequence thereof Ram Sewak Malviya was convinced that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Its perusal further shows
that after 1978 Malviyaji did not meet Gumnami Baba and 8 years later, in
the month of September, his son told him that a saint who was living in Ram

[ 65 ]
Bhawan,Faizabad had died and enquired from him whether he was Netaji,
on which tears came in his eyes and when he reached Ram Bhawan, he
found that all was over.
During cross-examination, two questions were put to him; the first
was in which year Malviyaji had told him that he should accompany
him(Malviyaji) to meet the saint,who was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
To the said question the witness replied, it was approximately in the
year 1980-1981.
The second question was whether between 1980-1981and 01.12.2016
(the date he was examined by the Commission) he had told any
official/person that Malviyaji had told him that Subhash Chandra Bose was
alive.
To the said question, he replied that he did not remember whether
between 1980-1981 and today he had told any official/person that Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose was alive.
I have perused the statement of Madan Mohan Tripathi and Ext.
C-12 filed by him. Since their perusal shows that the knowledge of the
witness that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was alive was derived through
Ram Sewak Malviya,who was an Assistant Teacher in his school, his
evidence would fall in the category of hearsay evidence and would be
legally inadmissible.
I also do not find Madan Mohan Tripathi to be a truthful witness
because during cross-examination when it was categorically put to him that
whether between 1980-1981(when Malviyaji told him that Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose was alive and he should meet him) and 01.12.2016 (the date
on which Commission recorded his statement) he had told any
officer/person that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was alive, he gave a
evasive answer in terms " Mujhe itna dhyan nahi hai ki varsh 1980-81 se aaj
ke beech me yeh baat maine kisi adhikari ya kisi vyakti ko batayi athwa
nahi"
I have reflected over the aforesaid answer of the witness and make no
bones in observing that I am not prepared to believe it. In my view it was
not such a trivial fact which he could have forgotten. I am of the opinion

[ 66 ]
that the aforesaid answer is deliberate and casts a serious doubt on the
veracity of the witness.
For the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of Madan Mohan Tripathi is
of no use to the Commission in determining the identity of Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji which the Commission was directed to find out,
videnotification dated 28.06.2016 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government
creating it.
5.19 I now take up the statement of CW-21 Atul Kumar Singh,aged
about 53 years, son of late Hari Narain Singh, resident of Ashapur, Darshan
Nagar,Faizabad. His evidence shows as under:
He was on visiting terms with his friends Ranvijay Singh and Arvind
Singh, who lived in Jharkhandi Mohalla,Faizabad and whose neighbour was
Dr.R.P.Misra, whom he had come to know through them; he used to call
Dr.R.P.Misra's wife as aunty ; in 1984 aunty (Dr.R.P.Misra's wife) took him
to Ram Bhawan,Faizabad where Gumnami Baba alias Bhgwanji used to
live; since it was summer time and there was an asbestos sheet on the roof
beneath which Gumnami Baba used to sit it was very hot at that place; aunty
requested him to send some puwal or kashehri so that there may be some
respite in heat to Gumnami Baba; at that time Bhagwanji, who used to sit
behind a curtain and whom he had not seen personally, asked who was the
person whom Dr.R.P.Misra's wife was asking to send puwal or kashehri;
there was a lot of weight in his voice and the style of his speaking indicated
a Bengali touch; thereafter only once or twice he visited Gumnami Baba
because it was said about him that only those whom he wanted could meet
him.
The evidence of Atul Kumar Singh further shows that after some time
on radio he heard the voice of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and was
convinced that there was a lot of similarity between that voice and the voice
of Bhagwanji which he had heard in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad, having a
Bengali touch Atul Kumar Singh was cross-examined by the Commission.
Two questions were put to him therein. The first was whether before today
(he was examined by the Commission on 01.12.2016) and the time when he
had gone to meet Bhagwanji alongwith Mrs.R.P.Misra (it was some time in
the year 1984) he had told anyone that there was a lot of similarity between

[ 67 ]
the voice of Bhagwanji which he had heard when he had gone to meet him
and the voice which he heard on the radio.
To the said question he replied " Maine yeh baat aaj se poorva our
kisi ko nahi batayi"
The second question put to him was whether he could say with
certainty that the voice which he had heard on radio and the voice in which
there was a Bengali touch was of the same person?
To the said question he replied " Maine yeh mahsoos kiya tha ki woh
awaz ek hi vyakti ki thi, lekin main poorna vishwas ke saath yeh nahi kah
sakta ki woh awaz ek hi aadmi ki thi."
I have perused the statement of Atul Kumr Singh very minutely and
in my view on the basis of his claim that since there was a lot of similarity
between the voice of Gumnami Baba which he had heard in Ram Bhawan
and that of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose which he heard on radio, having a
Bengali touch, it cannot be concluded for two reasons that the two voices
were of the same person; firstly, because in his cross-examination Atul
Kumar Singh has himself admitted that he cannot say with full confidence
that the two voices were of the same person.
Secondly, in my view the conduct of the witness is very unnatural
inasmuch as in his cross-examination he admitted that prior to the recording
of his statement by the Commission(it was recorded on 01.12.2016) he had
not disclosed to anyone that the voice of Gumnami Baba which he had heard
in Ram Bhawan and that of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose which he had
heard on radio(both in the year 1984) were of the same person. In my
opinion, if on the basis of similarity in two voices, the witness was really
convinced that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he would
not have maintained an ominous silence for 31-32 years i.e. between the
period 1984 to 01.12.2016,about this fact.
For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, it cannot be concluded on
the basis of the evidence of Atul Kumar Singh that Gumnami Baba was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

[ 68 ]
 5.20 I now take up the evidence of CW-22 Vishambhar Nath Arora,
aged about 66 years, son of late Sri A.N.Arora, resident of 12,
Lakshmanpuri Colony, Amaniganj, Faizabad. His statement reads as under:
He is a former Principal of Saket Postgraduate College, Faizabad,
having served in the College in different capacities(including as Principal)
for 42 years; till 1983 he stayed in Ayodhya; at the time of death of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, which took place at Ram Bhawan,
Faizabad on 16.09.1985 he was residing at Faizabad; in the year 1978 when
he was Professor in Defence Studies in Saket Postgraduate College, one
Mr.S.C.Srivastava, Professor in Defence Studies came as an external
examiner to the college; after the examination in which he was external
examiner Dr.Srivastava expressed to him his wish to meet any spiritual
personality in Ayodhya; at first he told him that there was none in his mind
but then instantly it flashed in his mind that there was a Sadhu who was
living in Lucknauwa Kothi, Ayodhya, who used to preach from behind a
curtain and was not visible to the person/persons to whom he was preaching;
thereafter he took Dr.Srivastava to Lucknauwa Kothi to meet the aforesaid
Sadhu; on-knocking at the door where Sadhu used to live, one
Smt.Saraswati Devi, who used to look after and make food for the said
Sadhu, opened the window of the room in which Sadhu used to stay; she
enquired about their credentials and asked them to give in writing their
reason for meeting the Sadhu; accordingly on a piece of paper he (the
witness) wrote the reason for visiting the Sadhu; Smt. Saraswati Devi took
the said piece of paper from behind the window, went inside and 10 minutes
later came back and told them from behind the window that Sadhu
(Bhagwanji) was meditating and had asked them to come next day at 4.00
p.m. to meet him; since Dr.Srivastava had his return reservation, he left the
same night but he (the witness) decided to meet the Sadhu alias Bhagwanji
next day at 4.00 p.m.
The evidence of Vishambhar Nath Arora further shows that next day
when at about 2.00 p.m. he came back from the college, he found a Jeep
standing at the door of his house. His wife told him that an officer of
Intelligence Bureau (I.B.) was waiting for him in the drawing room. He
immediately met the I.B. officer, whose name was N.P.Tiwari. He was a
Dy.S.P.in I.B. He enquired from Mr.Tiwari as to why he had come. The
[ 69 ]
latter told him that he had come to make a social call since he (the witness)
was an important person of Ayodhya. At about 3.45 p.m. he told Mr.Tiwari
that he had to leave, as he had an appointment at 4.00 p.m. on which the
latter remarked, whether his appointment was with Parde Wale Baba. When
he enquired from Mr.Tiwari as to how he knew that he (the witness) was
going to meet Parde Wale Baba, the latter replied that since he had found his
Scooter parked outside Lucknauwa Kothi, he thought that he (the witness)
was going to meet Parde Wale Baba. He asked Mr.Tiwari whether he or
Parde Wale Baba or both were under surveillance on which Mr.Tiwari gave
a evasive reply. Mr.Tiwari told him that Parde Wale Baba was just an
ordinary Baba, who was living in disguise and if he was under the
impression that Parde Wale Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he was
under a big delusion. Mr.Tiwari succeeded in persuading him to believe that
Parde Wale Baba was an ordinary Sadhu living in disguise and was certainly
not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Consequently he never visited Parde
Wale Baba alias Bhagwanji.The evidence of the witness further shows that
the piece of paper on which he had given in writing expressing his and
Prof.Srivastava's desire to meet Bhagwanji was found in the belongings of
Bhagwanji which were recovered after his death.
I have perused the statement of Vishambhar Nath Arora and the same
in my view shows that although people thought that Parde Wale Baba or
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose but Mr.N.P.Tiwari, Dy.S.P.,
I.B. was of the candid opinion that he was an ordinary Sadhu living in
disguise and was certainly not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The evidence
of Vishambhar Nath Arora further shows that as a consequence of the
conversation which he had with Dy.S.P. N.P.Tiwari, he was persuaded to
believe that Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and
consequently did not visit him. In my view had he believed that Parde Wale
Baba/Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he would have
certainly visited him.
5.21 I now take up the evidence of CW-23 Manish Joshi,aged about
35 years, son of Sri Subhash Kumar Joshi, resident of 2C-14,Ashirwad,
Sector 2, Vaishali,Ghaziabad. A perusal of his statement shows:
He (Manish Joshi) had heard that a Mangolian Trade Union
Photograph pertaining to 1952 had been filed before the Shahnawaz

[ 70 ]
Commission. His friend Anuj Dhar said that Bhagwanji used to say that the
said photograph had been taken in Ulen Batar, Mangolia in which it was
said that Netaji was present. Consequently, he started searching on internet
the photographs of Mongolia pertaining to the year 1952 and in one online
archive found a photo dated 28.01.1952 pertaining to the last rites of
Marshal Khoro Login Choiwalsan in which Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
was there. When he enquired about this photo from Dr.Vishambhar Nath
Arora, resident of Faizabad and asked him whether Bhagwanji used to ever
talk about Mongolia, the latter replied that Bhagwanji used to say that on
account of him relations between Mongolia and China became cordial.
In his statement Manish Joshi also stated that Mukherjee Commission
in its report had also mentioned that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had not
died as a result of plane crash. He further stated that there was a possibility
that the person who was living in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad as Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The witness filed a written compilation of which copy of the said
photograph was a part and desired that it be taken on record and read as a
part of his evidence. The Commission acceded to the request of the witness;
took his compilation and photograph on record; marked the compilation as
Ext. C-13 and photograph as Ext.C-13A; and directed that the said exhibits
shall be read as a part of the statement of the witness.
I have perused the statement of Manish Joshi and exhibits C-13 and
C-13A. In my opinion, even if it is assumed for arguments sake that in the
photograph dated 28.01.1952 (Ext.C-13A) Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is
seen alive (standing third from right as asserted by the witness), it does not
prove the claim of the witness that he was Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji,
whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985 in Faizabad and who prior to
his death was living in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad.
It should be borne in mind that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh vide
notification of the U.P.Government dated 28.06.2016 has directed the
Commission to find out the identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji,
who was living in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad prior to his death and whose last
rites were performed on 18.09.1985. The witness has furnished no evidence
to show that the person seen in photograph was living as Gumnami Baba

[ 71 ]
alias Bhagwanji in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad prior to his death and it were the
last rites of the said person which were performed on 18.09.1985.
On the contrary, the claim of the witness that there was a possibility
that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who lived in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is unworthy of acceptance because it is
belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at
pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary, in my view, to advert to the said
paragraphs again. The aforesaid finding of the DNA expert belies the claim
of the witness that there was a possibility of Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji being Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.22 The next witness whose evidence I propose discussing is CW-24
Netram Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Sadhu Saran Singh, resident of
village and post Semri Khan Kot district Siddharthnagar. His evidence can
be divided in two parts, namely;
(a) the facts which he had gathered about Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose from his father, who was a Sepoy in the Indian National Army
established by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose; and
(b) his personal visits to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who, in
the year 1980 was living at Ayodhya - Faizabad border in disguise as
Gumnami Baba.
Since the facts which he (the witness) gathered about Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose from his father would fall in the category of hearsay evidence
and would not be legally admissible, I am not adverting to them.
I propose limiting the discussion to the personal visits made by the
witness to Gumnami Baba, who, according to him, was none other than
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The evidence of the witness shows that in the year 1980 he alongwith
his father visited Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who, at that time was living
at Ayodhya - Faizabad border and they met him. His evidence further shows
that after about one to one and half years he went alone to meet Netaji

[ 72 ]
Subhash Chandra Bose, who was living at the same place where he had met
him in 1980; Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose met him and told him "Main
gumnaam rahna chaahta hoon" and asked him to leave. His evidence also
shows that he was convinced that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose and was living as Gumnami Baba because he had told
Nehruji "Main gumnaami zindagi hi ab vyateet karoonga" .
I have perused the statement of Netram Singh and am constrained to
observe that I am not inclined to accept his claim that Gumnami Baba was
in fact Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. It should be borne in mind that the
Governor of Uttar Pradesh videnotification of the U.P.Government dated
28.06.2016 has directed the Commission to find out the identity of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who was living in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad
prior to his death and whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985. The
witness has furnished no evidence to show that the person whom he met in
1980 alongwith his father and one to one and half years later alone at
Ayodhya - Faizabad border and whom he believed to be Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose was the same person who was living as Gumnami Baba in
Ram Bhawan, Faizabad prior to his death and whose last rites were
performed on 18.09.1985.
On the contrary, the claim of the witness that Gumnami Baba was
none other than Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is unworthy of acceptance
because it is belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs 4.15.10 and
4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary, in my view, to advert to the said
paragraphs again.
The aforesaid finding of the DNA expert belies the claim of the
witness that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
5.23 I now take up the statement of CW-25 Dr.Shanker Kumar
Chatterjee,aged about 54 years, son of late Sushil Kumar Chatterjee,
resident of Flat No.2A, Block N, Soura Niloy Housing Complex, 1,Kailash
Ghosh Road, Kolkata-700008. Its perusal shows as under.
[ 73 ]
 He had no doubt that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who prior to
his reported death lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last rites were
performed on 18.09.1985 at Faizabad was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
primarily because Leela Roy, who had been a close confidante for over 20
years of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and subsequently from 1963 to 1968
of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji believed that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were one and the same
person(Leela Roy died in 1970).
The witness also stated that the basis of his belief that Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is contained in his
affidavit dated 21.11.2016 sworn before a Notary at Kolkata and which is a
part of his compilation, which he had sent to the Commission.
The witness requested the Commission that the said affidavit be taken
on record and be treated as a part of his statement. The Commission acceded
to the request of the witness; took the said affidavit alongwith the
compilation on record and marked it as Ext. C-14 for identification.
During cross-examination a solitary question was put by the
Commission to the witness, namely, whether he had any personal
information that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose to which the witness replied that he has no personal/direct
information that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose and the source of his information is contained in Ext.C-14.
On perusing Ext.C-14 I find that the burden of the song of the witness
was that in the Tashkent Talks which were held from 6th January to 10th
January, 1966 between India (represented by Mr. Lal Bahadur Shashtri) and
Pakistan (represented by Mr.Ayub Khan) Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was
present (disguised as a reporter), as is manifest from a perusal of the picture
mailed to the witness by his friend Siddharth Sathabai, which convinced the
witness on research that one of the photos in the picture was that of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. (Opinion of Face Mapping Expert Mr. Neil Miller
further hardened this belief of the witness).
I have perused the statement of Dr.Shanker Kumar Chatterjee and
Ext.C-14. Even if it is assumed for arguments sake that Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose was present in the Tashkent Talks ( disguised as a reporter), it
[ 74 ]
does not prove the claim of the witness that he was Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji, whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985 and who prior to
his death was living in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad.It should be borne in mind
that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh vide notification of the U.P.Government
dated 28.06.2016 has directed the Commission to find out the identity of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who was living in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad
prior to his death and whose last rites were performed in Faizabad on
18.09.1985. The witness has furnished no evidence to show that the person
seen in photograph sent to him by Siddhartha Sathabai was the same person
who was living as Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji in Ram Bhawan,
Faizabad prior to his death and it were the last rites of the said person which
were performed on 18.09.1985.
On the contrary, the claim of the witness that there was a possibility
that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who lived in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is unworthy of acceptance because it is
belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at
pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary, in my view, to advert to the said
paragraphs again.
A perusal of the statement of the witness shows that he primarily
believed that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose because that was the belief of Smt. Leela Roy, who had been closely
associated with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji. It is pertinent to mention that in paragraphs 1 and 2 of his
affidavit (referred to above) the witness has also mentioned names of a large
number of other persons who also believed that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. I am afraid that the belief of
the witness that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was
based on the belief of Leela Roy and those mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2
of the affidavit of the witness and would thus fall in the category of hearsay
evidence, hence cannot be taken into consideration by the Commission for
determining the identity of Gumnami Baba.

[ 75 ]
 I have already mentioned that during cross-examination the witness
admitted that he had no personal/direct information that Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to believe the claim of
Dr. Shanker Kumar Chatterjee that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who
prior to his reported death lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last
rites were performed on 18.09.1985 at Faizabad was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
5.24 I now propose taking up the evidence of CW-26 Ram Prakash
Tripathi, aged about 49 years, son of late Rajpati Tripathi, resident of 966,
Divya Bhawan, Fatehganj,Faizabad. Its perusal, in short, shows as under:
He (Ram Prakash Tripathi) was a student of Krishna Gopal
Srivastava, who was close to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji. In the year
1985 he was studying in IGD Bombay (Bombay Art Course) in Saket Kala
Kendra, Faizabad, which was run by Krishna Gopal Srivastava. In
September,1985 the students were preparing with full vigour for the ensuing
examinations. Between 11th September to 15th September, 1985 Krishna
Gopal Srivastava(late) was hardly present at Saket Kala Kendra,Faizabad.
When he and others asked his sister-in-law Smt. Sukrit Srivastava as to what
was the matter, she replied that the reason for absence of Krishna Gopal
Srivastava was the illness of his Guru,Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji. On
17th September,1985 Krishna Gopal Srivastava came in a foul mood and
told him and others that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji had died; his face
was being disfigured and administration was harassing his disciples.
Thereafter Krishna Gopal Srivastava remained depressed.
The evidence of the witness further shows that meanwhile media
reports were published in terms that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. In the year 1992 he (the witness) was
appointed as a correspondent in the Faizabad Branch of Dainik Jagran. He
asked Krishna Gopal Srivastava whether Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose to which the latter replied, whether
people would believe them if they said he was Subhash Chandra Bose and
advised him to keep a distance because problems are being created in the

[ 76 ]
lives of those who try to bring to the forefront the fact that Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The evidence of the witness further shows that prior to 17th
September,1985 birthday of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose used to be
celebrated in Saket Kala Kendra; from 1986 to 1991 it was celebrated near
Company Bagh which was situated near Guptar Ghat where the last rites of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji were performed; during celebrations
Saraswati Devi Shukla, who was very close to Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji used to remain present alongwith a large number of other
persons and the inference which emerged from what she and others used to
say was that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
The evidence of the witness also shows that from 1992(when he
joined as correspondent in the Faizabad Branch of Dainik Jagran) he studied
literature pertaining to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and Subhash
Chandra Bose and the articles which were recovered from the place where
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji used to stay. The said study compelled him
to believe that circumstantial evidence clearly pointed out that Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The witness was cross-examined by the Commission. Two questions
were put to him therein. The first was whether he had personally met
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, to which he replied in the negative. The
second was whether between 16th September,1985 and 31st January,2017
(the date when the Commission recorded his statement) he had told any
officer or any other person that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose to which he replied that in the year 2011 when he
was a correspondent in Hindustan in New Delhi he had written that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I have perused the statement of Ram Prakash Tripathi and after the
utmost circumspection find it difficult to accept his claim that Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. In my view, if he
was convinced that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, he would not have maintained an ominous silence between
16th September,1985 (the date of death of Gumnami Baba aliasBhagwanji)

[ 77 ]
and 2011 when he first published in Hindustan (New Delhi) that Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The silence on the
part of the witness during 26 years (period between 16th September,1985
and 2011) in not disclosing to anyone that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is suggestive of the fact that he was not
convinced that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. Had he been really convinced that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose he would have been telling all
and sundry about it and also written about it much earlier. It should be
remembered that he was a press correspondent since 1992.
So far as the information which the witness derived from
Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla and others during birthday celebrations of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose at Company Bagh,Faizabad (on the basis of which
he felt that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose) is concerned, it would fall in the category of hearsay evidence and
would be a nullity in law.
The claim of the witness that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is also unworthy of acceptance because it is
belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at
pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary, in my view, to advert to the said
paragraphs again.
Apart from the above, it should also be remembered that during cross-
examination in answer to question No.1, the witness admitted that he had
not met Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not accept the claim of the witness that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.25. The next witness whose evidence I propose examining is
CW-27 Ram Pratap Yadav, aged about 55 years, son of late Ram Gopal
Yadav, resident of village Paliagoa, Tehsil Sohawal,district Faizabad. In
short, his evidence shows as under:

[ 78 ]
 In 1980 he was studying in Saket Mahavidyalaya in B.Sc. and was
also working, part time as Compounder, in the Nursing Home of
Dr. R.P.Misra situate in Faizabad city. Alongwith Dr.R.P.Misra he used to
visit Chhoti Devkali Temple in Ayodhya where Bhagwanji was being
treated for an old injury in leg which was not healing. There was a lot of
dampness in Devkali Temple in which Bhagwanji used to live.
Dr.R.P.Misra felt that he should stay in a house in which there was no
dampness, plenty of light and people living in proximity had no access.
Ultimately one such house named as Ram Bhawan was found in Faizabad
city in which Bhagwanji alongwith his belongings shifted one midnight.
The evidence of the witness shows that while Bhagwanji was living in
Ayodhya he used to constantly visit him and also supply him milk and
yellow mustard (of the latter Bhagwanji was very fond). Bhagwanji used to
enquire from him about the people who lived in his proximity. Every year
on 23rd January Bhagwanji's birthday used to be celebrated at Ram Bhawan
in style which people from Calcutta used to attend. One of them was
Mr.P.M.Roy. At Bhagwanji's death Mr.P.M.Roy and others in Calcutta were
telegraphically informed and when for 2/3 days no one from Calcutta came,
Dr. R.P.Misra alongwith his associates performed his last rites at Guptar
Ghat. After about 20/25 days, Dr.T.C.Banerjee, Dr.B.Roy and some others
started discussing with Dr.R.P.Misra as to what had happened to some very
expensive items which were kept in the drawing room of Bhagwanji.
Thereafter Dr.T.C.Banerjee, Dr.B.Roy and some others started asserting that
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and this fact was also
prominently projected in a newspaper called 'Nai Log'.
The evidence of the witness also shows that about the said time Lalita
Bose, niece of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose came to Dr. R.P.Misra's
residence and on seeing the album of Bhagwanji and some articles said that
he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He (the witness) felt that like
Bhagwanji, there was weight in Lalita Bose's voice and it came to his mind
that the person whom he had served was probably Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
The witness was cross-examined by the Commission. Two questions
were put to him therein. The first was whether between 16.09.1985(the date

[ 79 ]
of death of Bhagwanji) and 31st January,2017(the date on which his
statement was recorded by the Commission) he had told any authority or
person that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose. To it he replied that after 1985 he and his associates Ram Prasad
Rasik, Nusrat Quddusi and many others used to talk about it. He admitted
that he had not told any authority about it because he did not get any
opportunity to do so and also he was hesitant as Baba never used to appear
in front of any one. The second question put to the witness was that whether
Bhagwanji used to talk face to face with those who used to come to meet
him. He replied that Bhagwanji did not talk face to face with anyone. He
used to always talk from behind a curtain. He(the witness) also used to meet
and talk to him from behind a curtain. Bhagwanji used to sit on a wheel
chair and used to conceal his face.
I have perused the statement of Ram Pratap Yadav and in my view it
cannot be inferred from it that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose. It should be borne in mind that the witness himself has stated in his
examination-in-chief that there was a possibility that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. A perusal of his examination-
in-chief shows that his conclusion was based on what Lalita Bose said on
seeing the album and articles of Bhagwanji and the similarity between her
voice and that of Bhagwanji. I am afraid that since the evidence of the
witness shows that he did not arrive at a independent conclusion that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and his conclusion was
primarily based on the opinion of Lalita Bose, it would be hazardous to hold
that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. At any rate, on a
mere possibility that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, the Commission cannot hold that he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
As a matter of fact, in my view, there was not even a possibility of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji being Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
because it is belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs 4.15.10 and
4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report referred
to earlier.

[ 80 ]
 Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar CW-3, it is not necessary, in my view, to advert to the said
paragraphs again.
It should also be remembered that in cross-examination the witness
clearly admitted that Bhagwanji never used to talk face to face with anyone,
he (the witness) also used to talk to him from behind a curtain and even
when Bhagwanji used to move on his wheel chair, his face was covered.
I also find the conduct of the witness to be very unnatural because
during cross-examination he admitted that between 16.09.1985(the date of
death of Bhagwanji) and 31st January,2017(the date when his statement was
recorded by the Commission) he did not tell any authority that Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose as he did not get
any opportunity to do so. I am not prepared to accept this explanation of his.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am not willing to accept the claim of the
witness that there was a possibility that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. At any rate, on the basis of such a
possibility, the Commission cannot hold that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.26 I now take up the statement of CW-28 Manjeet Singh, aged
about 62 years, son of Guru Bux Singh, resident of 530/1 Brahm Kund,
Parikrama Road,Ayodhya district Faizabad. His statement, in short,shows as
under:
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji stayed in his father's house
No.530/1, situated at Brahm Kund,Parikrama Road, Ayodhya, as a tenant on
a monthly rent of Rs.150/- from 15.01.1975 to 15.05.1978. Every year his
birthday used to be celebrated on 23rd January and 4-5 persons from
Calcutta used to attend the birthday celebration. Gumnami Baba used to live
in the aforesaid house alongwith his Sevika Smt.Saraswati Devi, whom he
used to address as Jagdambey. Apart from Dr.T.C.Banerjee and
Dr. P.Banerjee, who used to treat him, others could only meet him after
taking prior permission of Smt.Saraswati Devi. They used to sit on a dari in
the outer room of the house and Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji used to
talk to them from an adjoining room on the door of which there was a thick
[ 81 ]
curtain on account of which they were not in a position to see him.
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji had a roaring voice and from his talks it
appeared that he had knowledge of almost every subject.
The evidence of the witness shows that he was curious to see him.
Hence whenever he used to pass on a cycle in front of his house, he used to
look towards the house. Once while he was passing by front of his house, he
saw that from a window(in which glass was fitted) Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was looking outside. The time was about 3-4 p.m. On seeing the
face of Gumnami Baba, he became nervous and Gumnami Baba realizing
that he had seen him immediately left the window. He (the witness) found
that on the face of Gumnami Baba there were spectacles of round frame, the
like of which he used to see in the photo of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The evidence of the witness further shows that Smt.Saraswati Devi
tried to take the possession of the house; in the records of Nagar Palika got
her name entered as a tenant; and started making endeavour to get the house
allotted in her name. This resulted in a litigation, in which there was a
compromise on 23.11.1977.
The evidence of the witness also shows that since people at night used
to come to meet Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, his father felt that perhaps
some undesirable person was living in the house and consequently gave an
application to the District Magistrate, Faizabad. Inspector Tiwari of LIU
came to make an enquiry but Smt.Saraswati Devi, after scolding turned him
away. At that time, the Kotwal of Police Station Ayodhya was Sri Hriday
Narain Singh alias Zalim Singh, who called his father and told him that in
case he would not let Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji live in the house, he
would have him detained under MISA and detained him at Ayodhya
Kotwali. On this, the mother of the witness met District Magistrate,
Faizabad immediately on whose intervention, his father was let off the
same day.
The evidence of the witness further shows that one night at about 9.00
p.m. in a blue Ambassador Car bearing No.UTC 3817, DIG, Faizabad
Range Sri Shyam Lal visited Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji.
The evidence of the witness also shows that in the year 1978
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji left his father's house and went to
Lucknauwa Mandir, Ayodhya situated near Chhoti Devkali. His father also

[ 82 ]
gave some letters to Mr.V.N.Arora, who was a correspondent of NIP who
told him that he had to publish some news in his paper(NIP which was
published in English).
I have perused the statement of Manjeet Singh and the same, in my
view, does not help the Commission in finding out the identity of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji, who prior to his death lived in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985 (vide
notification of the U.P.Government dated 28.06.2016 the Commission has
been directed to find out his identity). It is true that the witness has stated
that one day at about 3-4 p.m. while he was passing in front of his house he
saw Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji standing near a glass window putting
on spectacles of round frame, the like of which he had been seeing on the
photo of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. In my view, merely from this
circumstance, it would be hazardous to conclude that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, for one often finds people
wearing spectacles of round frame. In all fairness, I may also mention that
the witness has nowhere said in his statement that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
At the cost of repetition, I would like to point out that the evidence of
CW-28 Manjeet Singh does not help the Commission in finding out the
identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji.
5.27. The next witness, whose evidence I propose
examining/evaluating is Prof. Dwarka Nath Bose, aged about 79 years, son
of
Dr.Sunil Chandra Bose, resident of 7/2, Short Street, Kolkata-700017. A
perusal of his evidence, in short, shows as under:
His father Dr. Sunil Chandra Bose was one of the elder brothers of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Justice M.K.Mukherjee Enquiry Commission
has dealt with the issue whether Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose and has reached the conclusion that there was no
clinching evidence to show that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. For
DNA testing blood samples of kith and kin of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
were collected at the instance of Justice
[ 83 ]
M.K.Mukherjee Enquiry Commission. I (the witness) being one of the
nephews of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose gave sample of my blood for
DNA testing.
From Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines, Faizabad where Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji(whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985) lived, nine teeth
were collected; five of them were sent to Central Forensic Science
Laboratory,Calcutta; DNA Expert Dr.V.K.Kashyap, after examining three
of them (Exts. 2 to 4) gave an opinion that they belonged to a single human
aged male individual (alleged Gumnami Baba) and the individual source of
teeth does not belong to either maternal or paternal DNA lineage of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose,therefore, cannot be of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose. Since alongwith Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, the only aged
member, who stayed with him all along was Smt. Saraswati Devi Shukla,
the DNA report of Dr. Kashyap, in the opinion of Justice M.K.Mukherjee
Enquiry Commission proved that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji could not
have been Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The witness stated that his
personal view also was that he was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
A persual of the statement of the witness also shows that the second
reason furnished by him as to why Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji could
not have been Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is that on account of his
confinement in British jails for nearly 11 years, the health of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose was completely ruined and therefore the likelihood was that
he was not alive in the year 1985 (on 16th September,1985 Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji is alleged to have died).
A perusal of the statement of the witness also shows that so far as the
recovery of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's photo etc. from Ram Bhawan,
Faizabad is concerned, the same were supplied by Bijoy Nag, as is manifest
from a cutting of Times of India, Kolkata, which the witness filed before the
Commission with the request that Commission may take the same on record;
treat it as part of his statement. To the said request, the Commission
acceded; took the aforesaid cutting on record and marked it as Ext.C-16. A
perusal of the said cutting shows that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji had
requested Santosh Kumar Bhattacharya alias Tripti and Sunil Das alias
Mukul, to get the photographs of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's parents

[ 84 ]
and family members and the said persons got in touch with Bijoy Nag, who
had the said photos sent to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who selected
five of them. The first was of Prabhabati Devi, the second was of Janki Nath
Bose, the third was of both of them in a single frame, the fourth was of
Subhash Chandra Bose himself with hair shaved after Janki Nath Bose's
death and the fifth was of several members of Subhash Chandra Bose's
family. As has been mentioned in the said write-up, Prabhawati Devi and
Janki Nath Bose were mother and father respectively of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
The witness asserted that from the recovery of aforesaid photos, it
cannot be inferred that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who was living in
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad prior to his cremation on 18.09.1985 was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
In the last paragraph of his examination-in-chief, the witness has also
stated that in order to pass-off Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji as Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose after putting a beard on face of photo of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose a morphed picture was prepared , as is evident from
the cutting of Times of India, Kolkata dated 08.09.2011 which he filed
before the Commission with the prayer that it may be taken on record and
read as a part of his statement. The Commission took the said paper cutting
on record; marked it as Ext.C-17 for identification; and directed that it shall
be read as a part of the statement of the witness.
It is pertinent to mention that the witness has also filed a pedigree of
the family of Janaki Nath Bose,who was married to Prabhabati Devi, (they
were parents of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose) and prayed that the said
pedigree be taken on record. The Commission acceded to the request of the
witness; took the said pedigree on record and marked it as Ext.C-15 for
identification.
The witness also brought alongwith him three depositions,(wrongly
described by him in his statement as affidavits) namely, of Prof. Chitra
Ghose,aged about 87 years, Nita Ghose,aged about 75 years, and Krishna
Ghose, aged about 77 years, all real nieces of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
(as is manifest from the pedigree filed by him), sworn before a Notary at
Kolkata and urged the Commission to accept them as the statements of the

[ 85 ]
said persons because for plausible reasons contained in them, they were not
in a position to come and depose before the Commission. The Commission
perused the said depositions; found the request of the persons making them
to be reasonable and directed that they shall be treated as their statements. It
marked the deposition of Chitra Ghose as CW-30, that of Krishna Ghose as
CW-31 and that of Nita Ghose as CW-32.
The witness was also cross examined by the Commission. To the
solitary question put to him therein, namely, whether he had personally met
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who lived in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad prior
to his death and who was cremated on 18.09.1985, he replied in the
negative.
I have perused the statement of Prof. Dwarka Nath Bose. After
bestowing my anxious consideration to the averments contained therein, I
am inclined to agree with his view that report of the Mukherjee Commission
of Enquiry disproves that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose in view of the DNA test referred to in paragraphs
4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the said Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 while dealing with the evidence of
Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary in my view to advert to the said
paragraphs again.
In my view had Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji been Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, then the DNA report would not have been to the effect "the
individual - source of the teeth does not belong to either maternal or paternal
DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, therefore, cannot be of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose".
The assertion of the witness that the recovery of Netaji's photos etc.
from Ram Bhawan, Faizabad cannot be taken as evidence of the fact that
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was living there stands vindicated from a
perusal of Ext.C-16 (cutting of Times of India, Kolkata dated 17.03.2016),
which shows that the said photos were sent to Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji by Bijoy Nag, on his request.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find merit in the assertion of Prof. Dwarka
Nath Bose that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
[ 86 ]
 5.28 I now take up the deposition of CW-30 Prof.Chitra Ghose,
daughter of Sarat Chandra Bose, who was real brother of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. In the said deposition, attested by a Notary at Kolkata, at the
inception Prof.Chitra Ghose has stated that on account of her indisposition,
it would not be possible for her to depose before the Commission and it be
treated as her statement before the Commission. The said deposition was
handed over to me by CW-29 Prof.Dwarka Nath Bose, son of Dr.Sunil
Chandra Bose, who was real brother of Sarat Chandra Bose(father of
Prof.Chitra Ghose), on 22.02.2017 when he deposed before the
Commission. In his statement Prof.Dwarka Nath Bose has mentioned that
Prof.Chitra Ghose is aged about 87 years.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I am treating the aforesaid deposition of
Prof.Chitra Ghose as her statement before the Commission.
At the very outset she has stated that Gumnami Baba of Faizabad was
not and could not have been Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose for the reasons
enumerated hereinafter:
1. The Mukherjee Commission has categorically asserted that DNA
testing process conducted in respect of Gumnami Baba by the
internationally recognized Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Kolkata
proves that the teeth forwarded to the Laboratory as those of Gumnami Baba
could not have been of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
2. The Mukherjee Commission has held that although one
handwriting expert was of the firm opinion that the sample of writings from
Gumnami Baba,namely, those found in some books and journals were of
Netaji but three other equally eminent handwriting experts delivered a
contrary opinion. In the light of majority opinion, the Mukherjee
Commission saw no need to pursue the matter further.
3. On account of serious afflictions and illness from which Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose suffered and his frequent confinement in Jails it is
scarcely conceivable that he could have survived as a mortal human being
until his late eighties, as would have been the case had he been Gumnami
Baba. (Subhash Chandra Bose was born in 1897 and Gumnami Baba died
on 16.09.1985).

[ 87 ]
 4. Subhash Chandra Bose was a man of indomitable courage and
boundless energy and it is impossible to believe that he would have lived
behind a curtain in some one's house at Faizabad.
5. Subhash Chandra Bose was very much attached to his parents,
siblings, nieces, nephews, his wife and infant daughter and had he been alive
and returned to India, it is unbelievable that he would have stayed away
from his family which he loved so dearly.
6. In the context of establishing identity of Gumnami Baba, he is not
by any means the first holy man to surface with claims to be Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. There have been many such claims, all eventually debunked.
Some say that he will emerge one day alive in India while others argue that
he perished in Russia and could not have been Gumnami Baba.
7. The evidence on the basis of which people claim that Gumnami
Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was hear-say in nature. Much has
been made of items found in his possession which were of a personal nature
to the Bose family and Subhash Chandra Bose in particular. For example,
family photographs, spectacles with round lenses and umbrella belonging to
Subhash's father Janaki Nath Bose etc. The followers of Gumnami Baba
brought the said items from Calcutta (at times on his specific request).
8. The writings of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose suggest that he was a
man of action. He was the man who was instrumental in formation over a
very short period of time of Indian fighting forces both in Europe and Asia
and indeed set up Indian Provisional Government in exile.
9. It is wrong to assume that her father Sarat Chandra Bose knew that
Subhash Chandra Bose had not perished in an air crash. His correspondence
makes it clear that he had no more than a feeling that his brother was still
alive after 1945, but had no hard evidence at all.
In the last paragraph, the witness has stated as under:
"Briefly, it is unthinkable that the person who was Netaji would
disappear into seclusion from 1945,until his death 40 years later at the age
of 88 years - decades in which his beloved India lurched from crisis to
crisis, beginning with the monstrous tragedy of partition on religious lines.
Would Subhash Chandra Bose have idly stood by while the agonies of

[ 88 ]
communalism, massive poverty and bad Government assailed the people of
India? I will be quite unequivocal in saying that this is impossible."
I have perused the statement of Prof.Chitra Ghose and after bestowing
my anxious consideration to the averments contained therein, am inclined to
agree with her that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. It
is not disputed that Gumnami Baba, whose last rites were performed on
18.09.1985,prior to his death lived in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad and the only
other aged member who stayed with him all along was Smt.Saraswati Devi
Shukla. It is pertinent to mention that five teeth out of nine which were
found in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad along with samples of blood collected
from two descendants from father's side and three descendants of mother's
side of Subhash Chandra Bose were sent to Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, Kolkata for DNA testing and the DNA expert Dr.V.K.Kashyap
subjected three of the five teeth for DNA testing and concluded that the
forwarded teeth (Exts. 2 to 4) belonged to a single human aged male
individual (alleged Gumnami Baba) and the individual - source of the teeth
does not belong to either maternal or paternal DNA lineage of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose, therefore, cannot be of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose.
Since apart from Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla, Gumnami Baba was the
only aged member who lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad,had he been
Subhash Chandra Bose, the DNA expert would not have reported that
"the individual - source of the teeth does not belong to either maternal or
paternal DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, therefore, cannot be
of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose".
I have extracted the aforesaid facts from paragraphs 4.15.10 and
4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report and in
my view Prof. Chitra Ghose is justified in concluding that Justice
M.K.Mukherjee Commission Report disproves that Gumnami Baba was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The second reason furnished by Prof.Chitra Ghose to show that
Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was that only one of
the handwriting experts opined that the sample writings from Gumnami
Baba, namely, those found in some books and journals, were of Netaji

[ 89 ]
Subhash Chandra Bose and since three other equally eminent handwriting
experts delivered a contrary opinion, Mukherjee Commission was justified
(in the light of majority opinion) in not pursuing the matter. This aspect has
been considered by the Mukherjee Commission in paragraph 4.15.9 at page
121 of the Report. Since I have quoted the said paragraph in Para 5.2 while
dealing with the evidence of CW-3 Anuj Dhar, I do not want to be guilty of
repetition.
After perusing the reasons contained in paragraph 4.15.9 of the
Mukherjee Commission Report, I am of the view that Prof. Chitra Ghose
was justified in concluding that the evidence of handwriting experts does not
show that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I also find merit in Prof.Chitra Ghose's contention that a courageous
and bold man like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose would not have lived
behind a curtain in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad, away from his wife, daughter
and members of his extended family, who were very dear to him.
I refuse to accept the explanation furnished by CW-11 Ayodhya
Prasad Gupta and the doubt which crept in the mind of CW-36 Shitla Prasad
that since in the Transfer of Power Act (through which India got her
independence) there was a provision that if Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
was found in India, he would be handed over to the British Government, he
was leading a gumnami existence i.e. a life behind curtain because ever
since the Khosla and Shahnawaz Commissions of Enquiry submitted their
reports to the Government of India, which was over 40 years before the
evidence of the said witnesses was recorded by this Commission, the
consistent stand of the Government of India has been that Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose had died in a plane crash in Formosa in 1945 and since the
evidence recorded by this Commission shows that Gumnami Baba was a
highly literate person, well-informed about political affairs (both national
and international) it can safely be presumed that he was well aware about
this stand of Government of India and therefore the apprehension of his
being handed over to the British authorities could never have prompted him
to remain gumnami. For the above reasons, the aforesaid explanation of
CW-11 Ayodhya Prasad Gupta and the doubt which crept in the mind of
CW-36 Shitala Prasad is baseless.

[ 90 ]
 Prof.Chitra Ghose is also justified in concluding that so far as the
recovery of family photographs, spectacles of round lenses, umbrella
belonging to Subhash's father Janki Nath Bose etc. from Ram Bhawan,
Faizabad is concerned, they do not establish that Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose was living there because the said items were brought to Gumnami
Baba from Calcutta by his followers; often on his request.
Prof.Chitra Ghose has also mentioned that there is no scintilla of real
evidence to support any claim of Gumnami Baba being Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose and the evidence is hearsay and that of third party source. I
have gone through the evidence led before the Commission and find that the
bulk of evidence adduced before it to prove that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose is hearsay in nature.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find merit in the contention of Prof.Chitra
Ghose that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and
substance in her final conclusion,which has been reproduced verbatim in her
own words at pages 213 and 214 of this report.
5.29 Deposition of CW-31 Krishna Ghose, duly attested by a Notary
at Kolkata was handed over to me on 22.02.2017 by her father's real
brother's son CW-29 Prof.Dwarka Nath Bose during the course of his
deposition before the Commission. He urged that it be treated as her
statement before the Commission because for plausible reasons contained in
it, including the fact that she was aged about 77 years, she was not
personally able to appear before the Commission.After reflecting on the
request of Prof.Dwarka Nath Bose and on reading the deposition of Krishna
Ghose, who stated therein that it was not easy for her to travel these days, I
found the request to be reasonable and marked it as CW-31. Its perusal
shows as under:
Her father Shailesh Bose was a younger brother of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. Some organizations and individuals are projecting Gumnami
Baba as her uncle Subhash Chandra Bose in hiding or disguise. This is a
tissue of lies and an affront to the dignity and honour of Subhash Chandra
Bose, who was an iconic hero of India. Subhash Chandra Bose was
responsible for setting up of first national, independent Government of India
(in-exile) and creating a truly national army. He was not a man who would

[ 91 ]
have stealthily returned to India and concealed himself for decades in
disguise while her mother India suffered from agonies of partition and post
independence traumas.
I have perused the deposition of Krishna Ghose and find merit in her
contention that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The
latter in my view was a man of action and like Gumnami Baba would not
have hidden for decades and talked with persons from behind a screen with
his face concealed from them while India suffered through agonies of
partition and post independence traumas.
5.30 Deposition of CW-32 Nita Ghose, duly attested by a Notary at
Kolkata, was handed over to me by her real brother CW-29 Prof.Dwarka
Nath Bose on 22.02.2017 (during the course of his deposition before the
Commission) with a request that for plausible reasons contained in it Nita
Ghose was not able to appear in person and her deposition be treated as her
statement before the Commission. After perusing her deposition, wherein
she has stated that since her husband was laid up in bed with fracture she
was unable to appear before the Commission, I found the request to be
reasonable and marked her deposition as CW-32.
Nita Ghose has stated in her deposition that Gumnami Baba cannot be
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose for the reasons stated hereinafter:
(1) Since neither the parents nor siblings of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose lived till late eighties, considering the perilous life which Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose had lived, it is most unlikely that he would have
lived till the age of 88 years (Netaji was born in 1897 and Gumnami Baba
died on 16.09.1985).
(2) The report of Mukherjee Enquiry Commission, which was based
on DNA samples collected from paternal and maternal side of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose and the teeth of alleged Gumnami Baba shows that
Gumnami Baba could not have been Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
(3) Earlier in 1960s, some rumours had spread that Shoulmari Sadhu,
who lived in North Bengal, was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Many of
Netaji's admirers and followers who had visited him were not convinced
with his identity and consequently the rumour died down. Similarly, rumour
of Gumnami Baba being Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had started
[ 92 ]
circulating some years back and should be screened thoroughly before
coming to any conclusion.
(4) A man of action and a true patriot like Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose would not have lived in India in seclusion for such a long time while
his motherland was passing through tumultuous times.
I have perused the deposition of Nita Ghose and find merit in her
belief that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose because
the said claim is belied by the DNA test referred to in paragraphs 4.15.10
and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Report.
Since I have extracted the said paragraphs of the Mukherjee
Commission Report in paragraph 5.2 of this report,while dealing with the
evidence of Anuj Dhar (CW-3), it is not necessary in my view to advert to
the said paragraphs again.
Since apart from Smt. Saraswati Devi Shukla, Gumnami Baba was
the only aged member who lived in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad, had he been
Subhash Chandra Bose, the DNA expert would not have reported that " the
individual - source of the teeth does not belong to either maternal or paternal
DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, therefore, cannot be of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose".
I also find merit in her contention that a man of action and a true
patriot like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose would not have lived in India in
seclusion for such a long period of time when India was passing through
such tumultuous times.
It should be borne in mind that the consistent evidence of witnesses,
who appeared before the Commission, is that there was a curtain between
Gumnami Baba and the person/persons to whom he was talking on account
of which both could not see one and another. I refuse to believe that a
person like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, like a coward, would have
concealed his identity in such a manner.
5.31 I now take up the statement of CW-33 Ardhendu Bose, aged
about 70 years, son of late Sri Sailesh Chandra Bose, resident of
6,Southlands, 177, Saheed Bhagat Singh Road, Colaba, Mumbai. Its perusal,
in short, shows as under:

[ 93 ]
 His father late Sri Sailesh Chandra Bose was one of the younger
brothers of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He has emphatically stated that
Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose for the reasons stated
hereinafter:
(1) Although his father was the real brother of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose and had died in March,1984 and he (his father) had heard
about Gumnami Baba and very frequently at his father's residence in
Bombay a lot of discussion pertaining to the identity of Gumnami Baba used
to take place, had his father felt that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, he would have certainly gone to visit/see him because that
would have helped him to determine whether he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose or not. The circumstance that never once his father expressed
his desire to visit/see Gumnami Baba shows that he was not Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
(2) No news about the death of Gumnami Baba was sent to immediate
family members of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose like Sri Amiya Nath Bose,
Sri Shishir Kumar Bose, Sri Dwijendra Nath Bose and some others at
Calcutta. They were not only very close to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose but
had also worked very intimately with him. Had Gumnami Baba been Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose news about his death would have certainly been sent
to immediate family members of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose at Calcutta.
(3) The cremation of Gumnami Baba was stealthily performed on
18.09.1985 at Guptar Ghat, Faizabad in the presence of only 13 persons and
every effort was made to ensure that people did not see the face of
Gumnami Baba. This shows that Gumnami Baba in reality was not Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
(4) In connection with my business(business of the witness) right
from 1974 to 1975 I have been frequently visiting Kanpur; my perception is
that if my father had the slightest doubt that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose in hiding, he would have certainly asked me to visit
him for that could have unravelled the mystery of Gumnami Baba, who did
not show his face to those, who visited him and a screen used to separate
him from the person with whom he used to talk.

[ 94 ]
 (5) The DNA report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata
establishes that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. At
the time of Gumnami Baba's death the only aged member living with him in
Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines, Faizabad was Smt. Saraswati Devi Shukla,who
used to look after him. From paragraphs 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121
and 122 of the Mukherjee Commission Enquiry report, the following facts
emerge:
Five out of nine teeth found in Ram Bhawan alongwith samples of
blood collected from two descendants on father's side and three descendants
on mother's side of Netaji were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
Kolkata for DNA test to fix the identity of the person to whom the teeth
belonged. After subjecting three of the five teeth(Ext.2 to 4) to DNA
examination, DNA expert Dr. V.K.Kashyap, Director of Laboratory
submitted a report " that forwarded teeth - (Ext.2 to 4) belong to a single
human aged male individual - (alleged Gumnami Baba). The individual
source of the teeth does not belong to either maternal or paternal DNA
lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, therefore, cannot be of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose."
As the Mukherjee Commission concluded that the only other aged
member who stayed with Gumnami Baba was Smt. Saraswati Devi Shukla,
the report of Dr.Kashyap demolishes the belief that Gumnami Baba was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
(6) On the basis of some articles recovered from Ram Bhawan,
Faizabad like photos of parents of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, a pair of
spectacles having round lenses and some books relevant to Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose a theory is being propagated that Gumnami Baba was none
other than Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in hiding. Such a theory is not
credible as some of the aforesaid articles were sent to Gumnami Baba on his
request by Mr.Bijoy Nag. At any rate, from the recovery of these articles, it
cannot be conclusively said that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was
Gumnami Baba.As I have deposed earlier, the DNA evidence demolishes
the claim that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
(7) Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was a courageous man. He was a
man of action, who created the Indian National Army and formed a

[ 95 ]
provincial Government of Azad Hind outside India. In my view, had he
been alive he would have been roaring like a lion and not like Gumnami
Baba have lived the life of a coward in hiding, only meeting people from
behind a screen; concealing his face from them.
I have perused the statement of CW-33 Ardhendu Bose and find merit
in the aforesaid reasons on the basis of which he has concluded that
Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The statement of
Ardhendu Bose to the effect that no information of the death of Gumnami
Baba was sent to the family members of Netaji at Calcutta and his cremation
was performed stealthily on 18.09.1985 at Guptar Ghat, Faizabad receives
assurance from the evidence of CW-9 Ravindra Nath Shukla, who, in his
examination-in-chief stated that on the death of Gumnami Baba (on
16.09.1985) his physician and devout follower Dr. R.P.Misra said that he
would ask the SSP,Faizabad to send a wireless message to Calcutta but no
such wireless message was actually sent and when he questioned
Dr. R.P.Misra about this, he could give no answer. I also find substance in
the contention of Ardhendu Bose that the surreptitious manner in which the
cremation of Gumnami Baba was performed on 18.09.1985 at Guptar Ghat
in the presence of only 13 persons and the fact that people were not being
allowed to see the face of Gumnami Baba also shows that Gumnami Baba
was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I also find merit in the assertion of Ardhendu Bose that had his father
Sailesh Chandra Bose any doubt about Gumnami Baba being Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose, he would have either personally visited him or
asked him(Ardhendu Bose) to visit him. It should be remembered that
Sailesh Chandra Bose was the real brother of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
and Ardhendu Bose being his son was the real nephew of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
The assertion of Ardhendu Bose that DNA report of Central Forensic
Science Laboratory, Kolkata establishes that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose is correct because had he been Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose the DNA expert Dr.V.K.Kashyap, Director of Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata would not have reported "that
forwarded teeth - (Ext.2 to 4) belong to a single human aged male individual

[ 96 ]
- (alleged Gumnami Baba). The individual source of the teeth does not
belong to either maternal or paternal DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, therefore, cannot be of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose."
Since the evidence which has been led before this Commission shows
that the only other aged member who stayed with Gumnami Baba was
Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla and the said evidence was also led before the
Mukherjee Commission, Ardhendu Bose is justified in asserting that the
report of Dr. Kashyap demolishes the belief that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. I also find merit in the assertion of Ardhendu Bose
that had Gumnami Baba been Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, the DNA
expert would not have opined that the said teeth were not of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
I also find weight in the assertion of the witness that Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose was a courageous man; a man of action, who had created
Indian National Army and formed a Provincial Government of Azad Hind
outside India and had he been alive he would have been roaring like a lion
and not like Gumnami Baba have lived the life of a coward in hiding,
meeting people from behind a screen and concealing his face from them.
It is true that on the basis of recovery of some of the articles from
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad like photos of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, a pair
of spectacles having round lenses and some books having relevance to
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose a theory is being propagated that Gumnami
Baba was none other than Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in hiding but in my
view (as also deposed by the witness) much cannot be read into this because
some of the articles were sent by Mr.Bijoy Nag to Gumnami Baba on his
request. I also feel (as has been asserted by the witness) that simplicitor
from the recovery of these articles it cannot be conclusively said that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose for (as also deposed by
the witness) the DNA evidence demolishes the claim that Gumnami Baba
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
In my view, the evidence of CW-33 Ardhendu Bose, who has
emphatically stated that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose inspires confidence.

[ 97 ]
 5.32 The next witness whose evidence I propose considering is
CW-34 Shibashish Nag, son of late Samarendra Nath Nag and late Manjula
Nag r/o 23A, Sardar Sankar Road, P.O.Sarat Bose Road,Kolkata-700 029.
He has sent an affidavit dated 08.03.2017 sworn before a Notary in Kolkata
mentioning therein that since his wife was suffering from acute pain in the
legs, is almost immobile and he is the only person who looks after her, he is
unable to leave Kolkata and his affidavit be treated as his deposition. The
aforesaid affidavit was received by the Commission on 15.03.2017 and
since the Commission found the reasons for his not being able to depose
before it to be weighty, it directed that the said affidavit shall be read as
statement of CW-34 Shibashish Nag. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit
shows as under:
(1) He is a member of the family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
being the grandson of Sudhir Chandra Bose (Netaji's fourth brother), whose
only surviving daughter was his mother (mother of the deponent) late
Manjula Nag.
(2) He has gone through the depositions made by the seniors of the
family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose including his aunt Prof.Chitra
Ghose, his uncle Dwarka Nath Bose and is in complete agreement with their
claim that Gumnami Baba was not and could not have been his revered
granduncle Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
(3) He is also in complete agreement with their view that it is
inconceivable that a great leader of the Indian freedom movement who led
the Indian National Army would remain cooped up as a sadhu in Faizabad
for almost 40 years after independence when so much was needed to be
done in the country.
I have perused the statement of Shibashish Nag and since he has
candidly stated therein that he is in complete agreement with the deposition
of Prof. Dwarka Nath Bose (his uncle) and Prof. Chitra Ghose ( his aunt),
who in no uncertain terms have deposed that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose, as is manifest from a perusal of their statements
which have been discussed in paragraphs 5.27 and 5.28 respectively of this
report. I do not want to burden my report by reiterating the reasons

[ 98 ]
mentioned by them as to why Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the claim of Shibashish Nag that
Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.33 The next witness whose statement I propose discussing is
CW-35 Arup Kumar Mitra. He has sent his statement dated 10.03.2017
attested by a Notary at Kolkata mentioning therein that on account of his
poor health he is not able to appear in person before the Commission and the
said statement be treated as his statement before the Commission.
The said statement of Arup Kumar Mitra was received by the
Commission on 15.03.2017 and finding the reason furnished by him for not
appearing in person before the Commission to be plausible I directed that
the said statement shall be read as statement of CW-35 Arup Kumar Mitra.
A perusal of the aforesaid statement of Arup Kumar Mitra shows as under:
(1) He is a member of the family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
being grandson of his elder brother Dr.Sunil Chandra Bose. He strongly
supports the depositions made by elders of the family of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose including Prof. Dwarka Nath Bose and Prof. Chitra Ghose
and others that Gumnami Baba could not have been his grand uncle Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
(2) The DNA tests conducted under the aegis of the Justice
Mukherjee Commission have confirmed that there is no match between
DNA samples of Gumnami Baba and those of the Bose family.
(3) Netaji was a dynamic leader of the Indian freedom struggle who
escaped from India to lead the Indian National Army and it is unthinkable
that he would remain in seclusion for two decades in Faizabad after
independence.
I have perused the statement of Arup Kumar Mitra and since he has
candidly stated therein that he is in complete agreement with the depositions
of Prof. Dwarka Nath Bose (his uncle) and Prof. Chitra Ghose (his aunt),
who in no uncertain terms have deposed that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose, as is manifest from a perusal of their statements
which have been discussed in paragraphs 5.27 and 5.28 respectively of this

[ 99 ]
report, I do not want to burden my report by reiterating the reasons
mentioned by them as to why Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. It is pertinent to mention that the averments which he has
made in his statement find place in entirety in the statement of Prof.Chitra
Ghose.
For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the claim of Arup Kumar Mitra
that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.34 CW-36.The next witness who deposed before the Commission
was Shitla Singh, aged about 85 years, son of Raj Bahadur Singh, resident
of Kharmaria, Tehsil Bikapur district Faizabad, presently residing at 8/9/97,
Bahu Begum Maqbara,Faizabad. His evidence, in short, shows as under:
From 05.12.1958 he is publishing 'Jan Morcha', a daily newspaper
and from 14.04.1963 he is its Editor. He had never met Gumnami Baba nor
had received any information pertaining to Gumnami Baba. When the issue
of Gumnami Baba cropped up, some newspapers started publishing that he
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who was hiding because in the Transfer
of Power Act under which India had obtained independence there was a
provision that if Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was found in India, he would
be handed over to the British Government. He felt that it was his duty to
apprise his readers about the identity of Gumnami Baba. It struck him
whether a fearless person like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who did not
continue in Indian Civil Service, had created Indian National Army and had
played a prominent role in the independence of India, would lead a
gumnami (anonymous) existence. He met Maanwati Devi of his district,
who was a Captain in the Indian National Army and she told him that
Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
For the aforesaid reasons, he thought it necessary to meet the
associates of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose at Calcutta, who used to visit
Faizabad on Netaji Subhash Jayanti and meet him. Consequently he sought
the help of SSP,Faizabad and accompanied by an officer of Inspector rank
(probably Harish Chandra Singh) went to Calcutta. At Calcutta he met
Pabitra Mohan Roy, who was a close associate of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose and published in Jan Morcha of 06.11.1985 the conversation which he
had with Pabitra Mohan Roy about Gumnami Baba. He filed a copy of the

[ 100 ]
aforesaid conversation before the Commission; requested the Commission
to take it on record and treat it as a part of his statement. The Commission
took the same on record and marked it as Ext.C-18. A perusal of Ext.C-18
shows that Pabitra Mohan Roy emphatically denied that Gumnami Baba
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. It also shows that Dr. R.P.Misra's son
accompanied by another doctor informed him about the death of Gumnami
Baba but he did not think it necessary to act on the said information. In his
deposition before the Commission he stated that if Pabitra Mohan Roy and
others had thought that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, they would have certainly come to Faizabad on receiving the
news of his death.
A perusal of the statement of Shitla Singh further shows that on the
main page of Jan Morcha of 03.11.1985, a copy of which he was filing,
there was a write-up "Woh Kaun Tha". He prayed that the said write-up be
taken on record and read as a part of his statement. The Commission
acceded to his request; took the said write-up on record and marked it as
Ext.C-19. A perusal of C-19 shows that an anonymous letter was published
wherein it was mentioned that Gumnami Baba was none other than one
K.D.Upadhyay, who had shot dead one Brahm Dev Misra, who was to
attend a meeting in Gayatri Bhawan and after shooting him had run away
with his gun. In the said letter it is mentioned that the police had not been
able to trace out the murderer of Brahma Dev Misra. A perusal of statement
of Shitla Singh further shows that approximately about two years ago, he
had telephoned the then DGP of U.P. Sri Jagmohan Yadav and requested
him to trace out the file of K.D.Upadhyay containing his signatures, photos
etc. and to have the same compared with the signatures, photos etc. of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji but nothing happened in the matter.
A perusal of the statement of witness Shitla Singh further shows that
in Jan Morcha dated 03.11.1985 at page 4 there was a write-up under the
caption " Netaji Ko Apmanit Mat Kijiye". The witness filed a copy of the
said write-up; requested the Commission to take it on record and treat it as a
part of his statement. The Commission acceded to his request; took the said
write-up on record and marked it as Ext.C-20. A perusal of C-20 shows that
apart from the fact that Shahnawaz Commission and Khosla Commission
reported that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had died in a plane crash, it is
[ 101 ]
extremely improbable that a man of immense courage like Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, who had founded the Indian National Army and had fought
for India's independence would have chosen to lead a gumnami
existence(anonymous existence) lest Nehru and others, who were ill-
disposed towards him handed him over to the British Government.
The witness was cross-examined by the Commission.
In reply to Question No.1,which was, who in his opinion Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was, he stated that in his view he was
K.D.Upadhyay. He further stated that his view is reinforced by the fact that
after his death the face of Gumnami Baba was defaced so that it could not be
recognized. In his view, the hot haste with which Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was cremated at a place at which people are not normally
cremated and the circumstance that only 13 people participated in the
cremation lead to the same inference.
Question No.2 put to the witness during cross-examination was,
whether it was true that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji never met people
face to face and used to talk to people from inside a room on the window of
which there was a curtain and the person/persons with whom he used to talk
was/were on the other side of the window. He replied that he had also
heard so.
I have perused the statement of Shitla Singh and Exts. C-18,C-19 and
C-20 and am inclined to accept his view that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. I find merit in his belief
that a fearless person like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who left Indian
Civil Service, created Indian National Army and fought for India's
independence from abroad would not have led a gumnami existence
(anonymous existence) merely because of the fear that Nehru may hand him
over to the British. In my view, fear was something which was alien to
Subhash Chandra Bose; exemplary courage was the hallmark of his
personality.
I also find merit in the assertion of Shitla Singh that had Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji been Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, on receiving the
news of death of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, Pabitra Mohan Roy and
others, who were close associates of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, would
[ 102 ]
have rushed from Calcutta to Faizabad and been present at the time of the
cremation of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji. A perusal of C-18 shows that
immediately on the death of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, Pabitra
Mohan Roy had received information about the same.
The belief of Shitla Singh that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is reinforced by the DNA test referred to
in paragraphs 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee
Commission Report. Since earlier at a number of places I have mentioned in
detail as to how the DNA test belies the fact that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, I do not want to be guilty of
repetition.
Before parting with the evidence of Shitla Singh, I wish to make it
clear that I am not inclined to accept his claim that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was actually K.D.Upadhyay. In my view, neither a perusal of
statement of Shitla Singh nor C-19 shows that there was any tangible
evidence/material to draw such a inference. I feel that it is just a
surmise/suspicion of Shitla Singh that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
none other than K.D.Upadhyay. I wish to make it clear that Judicial
Commissions of Enquiry, like the present, do not base their
inference/findings on surmises/suspicions. They base the same on evidence
which is legally admissible. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that
whereas Shitla Singh has been able to show that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose but he has failed to
establish that he (Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji) was K.D.Upadhyay.
5.35 The next witness whose evidence I propose assessing is CW-37
Nand Kumar Misra, aged about 62 years, son of late Ram Kishore Misra,
resident of Swarg Dwar, Ayodhya district Faizabad. His evidence, in short,
shows as under:
Between 1974 to 1981 he served Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji,
who, during the said period lived at three places in Ayodhya, namely, Udru
Bazar Crossing, near Brahma Kund Gurudwara and Lucknauwa Hata. From
Lucknauwa Hata Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji shifted to the house of
Shakti Singh called Ram Bhawan in Civil Lines,Faizabad where he lived till
his death and from where his dead body was taken to Guptar Ghat, Faizabad

[ 103 ]
where his last rites, in which members of his family(family of witness)
participated, were performed.
The evidence of Nand Kumar Misra shows that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji never talked face to face with anyone and used to talk to people
from behind a curtain. Durga Prasad Pandey, an Advocate, on whose request
his father (father of the witness) kept Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji as a
tenant at his house in Udru Bazar Crossing, told his father that Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and his father in
turn told him and members of the family this fact. He ( the witness) was also
curious to find out who Gumnami Baba was and when he peeped between
the space between two parts of the door of the room in which Gumnami
Baba used to live, it appeared to him that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose and his belief was hardened when he saw a photo of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. Near about 18th January some guests of Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji were to visit him. He(the witness) stood on a stool to bring
down beddings which were kept on a steel plank. In the process he became
disbalanced and fell down. Immediately Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
came out and enquired from him whether he had seen him. In fact, he had
and discovered that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He stated that he
was hundred per cent convinced that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The witness was cross-examined by the Commission.
To the first question put to him therein, namely, whether before today
he had told any person/any organization/any officer about seeing Gumnami
Baba through the space between two parts of the door, getting disbalanced
and falling from the stool, he replied that since his father had strictly told
them not to mention this fact, he did not tell anyone that Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
To the second question put to him therein, namely, why he was saying
today that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose, he replied that since he was not alive, he has mentioned it.
I have perused the statement of Nand Kumar Misra, and am
constrained to observe that I am not prepared to accept his claim that he had

[ 104 ]
personally seen Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and was hundred per cent
convinced that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose for two reasons:
Firstly, his conduct in disclosing this fact for the first time on 21st
Apri1,2017( when his statement was recorded by the Commission) although
he was in service of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji from 1974 to 1981
renders it very unsafe for me to accept his evidence. In my view, if he was
really convinced that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, he would not have maintained an ominous silence between
1981 to 21st April, 2017 ( for 36 years) about the fact that he was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. I am not prepared to accept his answer that since his
father had asked him not to disclose it, he refrained from disclosing it. Had
this reason been genuine, he would not have disclosed it to the Commission
on 21st Apri1,2017 when his statement was being recorded
by it.
The Supreme Court times out of number has held that the conduct of
a witness is a very sound basis for evaluating his credibility and on
innumerable occasions has rejected the testimony of a witness merely
because it was not in consonance with the natural conduct of a person ( as is
the case here).
The second reason is that Nand Kumar Misra has candidly stated in
his examination-in-chief that from Lucknauwa Hata,Ayodhya Gumnami
Baba shifted to the house of Shakti Singh,namely, Ram Bhawan in Civil
Lines,Faizabad where he lived till his death and from where his dead body
was taken to Guptar Ghat,Faizabad for cremation (the evidence which has
been led before the Commission is that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
died on 16.09.1985 in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and he was cremated on
18.09.1985). Had Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji been Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose the report of the DNA Expert Dr.V.K.Kashyap of Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta, who did DNA profiling of three
teeth of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji (Ext.2 to 4),which were found in
Ram Bhawan, to whom samples of blood collected from two descendants on
father's side and three descendants on mother's side of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose were also sent would not have been that "forwarded teeth -
(Exhibits 2 to 4) belong to a single human aged male individual - (alleged
Gumnami Baba). The individual - source of the teeth does not belong to
[ 105 ]
either maternal or paternal DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
therefore, cannot be of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose".
It is pertinent to mention that the only other aged member who stayed
with Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji all along was Smt.Saraswati Devi
Shukla.
I have extracted the aforesaid facts pertaining to the DNA test from
paragraphs 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee
Commission Report.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am not prepared to accept the claim of
CW-37 Nand Kumar Misra that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.36 The next witness whose evidence calls for evaluation is CW-38
Krishna Kumar Misra,aged about 60 years, son of late Ram Kishore Misra,
resident of Swarg Dwar, Ayodhya,district Faizabad. In short it shows as
under:
In 1974 Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji came as a tenant in his
house in Udru Bazar in Ayodhya where he stayed till 1976. From there he
went to Brahm Kund in Ayodhya, thereafter to Lucknauwa Hata,Ayodhya
and finally to Ram Bhawan, Civil Lines, Faizabad where he died. On the
third day of his death last rites were performed at Guptar Ghat in Faizabad.
Krishna Kumar Misra served Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji while
he was in Udru Bazar, Brahm Kund and Lucknauwa Hata. His job was to do
work like getting fish, oil, vegetables, bread butter etc. He did not serve him
at Ram Bhawan,Faizabad but alongwith his father often visited him there at
about 9.00 p.m.
The evidence of Krishna Kumar Misra shows that Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji lived behind a curtain and never talked with anyone face to
face. Sometimes when the curtain, on account of impact of air moved, he
saw him and became convinced that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
His father had also told him and members of the family that he was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose but had asked them not to tell this to anyone.
The evidence of Krishna Kumar Misra further shows that while the
corpse of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was being taken to Guptar Ghat

[ 106 ]
for cremation, his father told Mahatma Saran that he had not seen his face
and requested him to show the same. At that time he (the witness) was also
present. Mahatma Saran removed the cloth with which the face of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was covered and he and his father became fully
convinced that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. In all 13 persons participated in his last rites.
Krishna Kumar Misra was cross-examined by the Commission.
The first question put to him therein was whether between 1974 -
1976 when on account of curtain moving on impact of air he had seen the
face of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji and today (21.04.2017) he had told
any person/organization/officer this fact. To the said question, he replied
that since his father had told him not to mention this fact to anyone, he did
not tell anyone.
Question No.2 put to him therein was why he was telling this fact
today. He replied that since a Commission had been constituted by the U.P.
Government to fix the identity of Gumnami Baba, he had mentioned it.
Question No.3 put to him therein was that since when Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was cremated on 18.09.1985 (third day of his death) his
face had been disfigured and could not be recognized, how could he say that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. To it he
replied that from his beard and hair he could say so.
I have perused the statement of Krishna Kumar Misra and am
constrained to observe that I am not inclined to accept his claim that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Gumnami Baba never talked to any person face to face and always talked to
people from behind a curtain. His evidence shows that when on account of
impact of air the curtain moved, he discovered that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and at the time of cremation
from his beard and hair he could also make out that he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
I am afraid, on the basis of such evidence it would be unsafe to
conclude with certainty that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji

[ 107 ]
Subhash Chandra Bose. Judicial Commissions of Enquiry (like the present)
only reach conclusions when the evidence led before them proves a fact
beyond all reasonable doubt. I am afraid, this is not the position here.
Another serious impediment in accepting the claim of the witness that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is the
ominous silence which he maintained between 1974 - 1976 ( when on
account of impact of air curtain moved and he saw the face of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji) and today ( 21.04.2017) with respect to the identity
of Gumnami Baba. A perusal of his statement shows that during the said
period, he did not disclose to any person/organization/authority that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. I am
not prepared to accept his answer that his non-disclosure was on account of
instructions of his father. In my view, had that been the reason, he would not
have even told the Commission today that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The Supreme Court, times out of number, has disbelieved witnesses
on account of their conduct in not disclosing an incident for a considerable
time to people. I am afraid, here the non-disclosure runs not into days but
into years i.e. from 1974-1976 to 2017 (roughly 41 years). In my view,
when after such a long time the witness asserts that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, it would not be safe to accept
his claim.
Finally, I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid claim of the witness
because according to him prior to his death Gumnami Baba aliasBhagwanji
lived in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad and the report of Dr. V.K.Kashyap,
Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta about the DNA
profiling of three teeth of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji which were
recovered from Ram Bhawan,Faizabad belies the fact that he was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. Since while discussing the evidence of CW-37
Nand Kumar Misra (real brother of the witness), I have dealt with the DNA
report in some detail, I do not want to be guilty of repetition.
For the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of Krishna Kumar Misra that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose does not
inspire belief.

[ 108 ]
 5.37 The next in line amongst the witnesses who appeared before the
Commission is CW-39 Shiv Prasad,aged about 72 years, son of Basant Lal
Yadav, resident of Ranopali P.O.Ayodhya,district Faizabad. His deposition,
in short, shows as under:
In 1974 Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji used to live in Brahm Kund
in Ayodhya. At that time he was employed as Telegram Messenger in
Ayodhya Post Office. That year a telegram came in the name of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji and he proceeded to deliver it. While he was
delivering it Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was inside a room, behind the
verandah. When he asked him to open the door and take the telegram,
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji sternly reprimanded him. Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji took the telegram from the space between two planks of the
door but he could not see his face.
The evidence of Shiv Prasad further shows that often he used to
deliver telegrams to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji but he never recieved
telegrams face to face and took them from the space between two planks of
the door of his room.
The evidence of Shiv Prasad also shows that one day while Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was in Lucknauwa Hata and his Sevika Saraswati
Devi Shukla was not present, he went to deliver a telegram to him.Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji asked him to see him and also told him (Shiv Prasad)
that he would see him. He (Shiv Prasad) entered inside the room and
touched his feet. At that time his face was not covered. It was fully open.
After seeing him he became fully convinced that he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. That day Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji also told him that
he was going to Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad and asked him to
continue meeting him. On his request he met him once at Ram Bhawan but
the meeting was not face to face. While they were talking. Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji was inside a room on the window of which there was a
curtain and he was on the other side of the curtain.
In his statement Shiv Prasad has candidly mentioned that he was fully
convinced that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
[ 109 ]
 Shiv Prasad was cross-examined by the Commission.
The first question put to him therein was whether he had told any
officer/person/organization that once he had seen Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji face to face and was fully convinced that he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. To the said question,he replied in the negative.
The second question put to him therein was why he had not
mentioned it. He replied that he did not think it necessary,as his duty was to
deliver telegram and after delivering it he used to return.
I have perused the statement of Shiv Prasad and make no bones in
observing that am not inclined to accept his claim that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. A perusal of his statement
shows that his claim was based on the face to face meeting which he had
with him in Lucknauwa Hata,Ayodhya in the absence of Smt.Saraswati
Devi Shukla. Since practically all the witnesses who deposed before the
Commission candidly stated that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji never met
any person face to face and stated that from a room on the window of which
there was a curtain he used to talk to persons who were on the other side of
curtain, I have no hesitation in rejecting the aforesaid claim of the witness.
Another serious impediment in accepting the aforesaid claim of the
witness is that almost after 36 years, the witness was stating for the first time
that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. I
say this because the evidence on record shows that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji lived in Lucknauwa Hata about the year 1980-81 and there the
witness had seen him face to face. It is pertinent to mention that the
statement of the witness was recorded by the Commission on 21.04.2017
wherein he admitted that he had not told any individual/ officer/
organization that on seeing Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji face to face he
was convinced that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Since between
1980-81 and 2017 there is a yawning gap of almost 36 years, I make no
bones in observing that I am not inclined to accept the claim of the witness
that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The third reason for not placing reliance on the testimony of the
witness is because his evidence shows that from Lucknauwa Hata, Ayodhya
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji went to Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,
[ 110 ]
Faizabadwhere he died. The DNA profiling of three teeth of Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji recovered from Ram Bhawan, Faizabad and done by
Dr.V.K.Kashyap of Central Forensic Science Laboratory,Calcutta belies the
fact that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose. Since while dealing with the evidence of CW-37 Nand Kumar Misra I
have dealt with the DNA report in some detail, I do not want to be guilty of
repetition.
For the aforesaid reasons, I have no compunction in rejecting the
claim of CW-39 Shiv Prasad that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
5.38 I now take up the statement of CW-40 Dr. R.P.Misra,aged about
94 years, son of late Durga Prasad Misra, resident of Mohalla Jharkhandi,
Faizabad. His statement (on account of his old age) was recorded by the
Commission in question - answer form. What emerges therefrom is as
under:
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was like a grandfather to him. He
used to talk to people from behind a curtain. He never talked to him face to
face. He (the witness) was present at Ram Bhawan at the time of the death
of Gumnami Baba. He sent news about his death to close associates of
Gumnami Baba in Calcutta, like Dr. Pabitra Mohan Roy and others. No one
from Calcutta came and participated in the last rites of Gumnami Baba
which were performed on 18.09.1985 at Guptar Ghat,Faizabad. His
association with Gumnami Baba dates back to the time when Gumnami
Baba used to live in Ayodhya at the house of Ram Kishore Panda but he
never visited him there. He first came in contact with Gumnami Baba as a
doctor but thereafter started treating him as his grandfather. From his first
meeting with Gumnami Baba and till his death he continuously met him.
12-13 people participated in the cremation of Gumnami Baba. It is wrong to
say that after the death of Gumnami Baba his face had been disfigured and
people were not allowed to see his dead body. Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla
used to stay with Gumnami Baba and look after his needs. He did not know
what was the perception of public in respect of identity of Gumnami Baba.
Apart from him Raja Sahab Etawah used to visit Gumnami Baba in Ram
Bhawan. He did not remember whether his first visit to Gumnami Baba was
[ 111 ]
occassioned by the fact that a wound on his leg was not healing on account
of dampness in the premises in which he was living and on his advice
Gumnami Baba was shifted to Ram Bhawan. Apart from him, late
Dr.Banerjee (father-in-law of Rita Banerjee) also used to attend on
Gumnami Baba. On the birthday of Gumnami Baba, people from Calcutta
used to come but he did not remember whether a small function used to be
held. He did not know whether people who used to come from Calcutta used
to talk face to face with Gumnami Baba, as he was not concerned with it. He
did not remember whether before today his statement was recorded by any
authority. He did not remember whether Gumnami Baba used to ask people
from Calcutta for literature pertaining to Subhash Chandra Bose and also
articles of personal use of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He did not
remember whether people from Calcutta used to come on birthday of
Gumnami Baba with aforesaid things.
At the end of the statement of the witness, I made the following note:
"I observed the demeanor of the witness. He understood the questions
put to him by me and gave clear answer."
I have perused the questions put by me to Dr.R.P.Misra, the answers
given by him to them and make no bones in observing that his statement
does not help the Commission in fixing the identity of Gumnami Baba, who
lived in Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad prior to his death and whose last
rites were performed on 18.09.1985 at Guptar Ghat,Faizabad. The
notification of the U.P.Government dated 28.06.2016, by which the
Commission was created, mandated it to discover the identity of the
aforesaid Gumnami Baba. It is pertinent to mention that all that he could say
in respect of identity of Gumnami Baba was that he was like a grandfather
to him and he could not say anything more about him.
However, the statement of Dr.R.P.Misra is of great significance
because he was in constant touch with Gumnami Baba right from the time
he was living in Ayodhya in Ram Kishore Panda's house and till his death in
Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad on 16.09.1985. During the aforesaid
period, his contact with him was both in the capacity of a doctor and as a

[ 112 ]
person whom he revered as a grandfather. From a perusal of the statement of
Dr.R.P.Misra, the facts enumerated hereinafter emerge:-
(a) Gumnami Baba never met anyone (including him) face to
face. He used to talk to people from behind a curtain.
(b) The only person who lived with him was Smt.Saraswati Devi
Shukla, who used to look after him.
(c) Every year on his birthday people from Calcutta used to come.
(d) He was present in Ram Bhawan at the time of death of
Gumnami Baba and news was sent to Dr.Pabitra Mohan Roy and
others at Calcutta but none of them attended his cremation on
18.09.1985 at Guptar Ghat.
(e) It is wrong to say that subsequent to the death of Gumnami
Baba, his face was disfigured and people were not allowed to see his
dead body.
(f) He did not know what was the perception of general public
about the identity of Gumnami Baba.
(g) He and late Dr. Banerjee (father-in-law of Rita Banerjee) were
the only two doctors who attended on Gumnami Baba.
(h) He did not know whether Gumnami Baba used toask people
in Calcutta for literature pertaining to Subhash Chandra Bose and
articles of personal use of Subhash Chandra Bose.
However, before parting with the statement of Dr.R.P.Misra, I feel it
pertinent to mention that from a perusal of the facts mentioned above, it is
clear that Dr.R.P.Misra and members of his family had a very long and
intimate relationship with Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji. My impression
is that for reasons best known to Dr.R.P.Misra, he was reluctant to speak
about it and therefore insisted that he only knew him as his grandfather and
had nothing more to tell about him. Considering his long relationship with
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, bearing in mind the fact that he was his
doctor and the responsibility of looking after him was his, I find it difficult
to accept his statement that Gumnami Baba never talked to him face to face.
In my view,alongwith Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla (the Sevika of Gumnami
Baba)who is not alive, he could have been the best person to shed light on
[ 113 ]
the identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji but regrettably he is not
doing so.What a pitty?
5.39 The next witness whose evidence I propose considering is
CW-41 Arvind Sharma,aged about 36 years, son of late Radhey Shyam
Sharma, resident of D-106, Mahanagar Extension, Lucknow. He informed
the Commission that he had sent a written compilation through post to the
Secretary of the Commission, the said compilation betaken on record and
treated as his statement. The Secretary of the Commission placed the said
compilation before the witness, who admitted that it was the same
compilation which he had sent to him.
The Commission acceded to the request of the witness; took the said
compilation on record; marked it as Ext.-A dated 09.05.2017 and directed
that it shall be read as a part of his statement.
A perusal of the compilation shows that the contention of the witness
is that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose did not die in a plane crash at Taihoku
(present day Taiwan) in 1945, as reported by Shahnawaz Commission
(1956) and Khosla Commission (1970). His further contention is that the
Mukherjee Commission (2006) has not accepted the theory of plane crash
and the research done by Logician, Columnist and Researcher Adhir Som
also points to the same inference. A perusal of the compilation also shows
that Adhir Som has based his inference on a French Intelligence Report
which shows that at the end of November,1946 at a conference at Hanoi, in
which six nations were represented, Chandra Bose was present. According
to him and the witness, Chandra Bose was none other than Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
I have perused the compilation and the annexures attached to the
same filed by the witness (CW-41 Arvind Sharma). In my view, since in the
French Intelligence Report it is only mentioned that Chandra Bose was
present, it would be unsafe for the Commission to conclude that Chandra
Bose, who was present at a conference at Hanoi, was none other than Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. I feel it would not be appropriate for the
Commission to draw the inference suggested by the witness.
However, since Mukherjee Commission of Enquiry has held
thatNetaji Subhash Chandra Bose did not die in a plane crash, the possibility
[ 114 ]
that he was alive after the year 1945 cannot be ruled out. But I make no
bones in observing that merely in view of such a possibility, it cannot be
held that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
This Commission was set up by the U.P.Government, vide
notification dated 28.06.2016 requiring it to find out the identity of
Gumnami Baba, who prior to his death lived in Ram Bhawan, Civil Lines,
Faizabad and whose last rites were peroformed at Faizabad on 18.09.1985
(two days after his death which took place on 16.09.1985). Although from
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad a large number of articles like photos of parents of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, spectacles containing round lenses and
literature relevant to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was recovered, the
Mukherjee Commission Report, for reasons contained in it, concludes that
there was no clinching evidence to suggest that Gumnami Baba was in fact
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. A large number of circumstances show that
in fact Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Some of the
witnesses including Prof. Dwarka Nath Bose CW-29, stated that some of the
articles recovered from Ram Bhawan, had been sent to Gumnami Baba on
his specific request. At any rate, in my view, merely from the aforesaid
recovery, it cannot be inferred that it was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose who
was living in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad.
The evidence of the witnesses, who deposed before the Commission,
shows that a large number of persons including Dr. Pabitra Mohan Roy used
to visit Gumnami Baba. The evidence of Dr.R.P.Misra (CW-40), both the
doctor and a close associate of Gumnami Baba shows that news of his death
was sent to Dr. Pabitra Mohan Roy and others at Calcutta. The evidence of
CW-36 Shitla Singh (Editor of Jan Morcha) shows that he interviewed
Dr. Pabitra Mohan Roy, who admitted that he had received the news of
Gumnami Baba's death and also admitted that none of them came to attend
his funeral. In my view, this circumstance shows that Dr. Pabitra Mohan
Roy and others did not believe that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. I feel had they believed so, they would have certainly come
to offer their homage to him.

[ 115 ]
 A large number of witnesses admitted before the Commission that
prior to the cremation of Gumnami Baba his face was disfigured; people
were not allowed to see his dead body and only 13 persons participated in
his funeral, which was done with hot haste in the evening at Guptar
Ghat,Faizabad, where cremations are not normally done. I feel that all these
facts also show that Gumnami Baba was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I further find that the witnesses, who deposed before the Commission,
stated that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose left Indian Civil Service to join
India's freedom movement; left India and formed Indian National Army; set
up a Provincial Government outside India; and fearlessly fought for India's
independence from abroad. In my opinion, such a man for four decades
would not have led a gumnami existence (anonymous existence) talking to
poeple from behind a curtain and not face to face, which has been the
consistent evidence of witnesses who deposed before the Commission. It is
pertinent to mention that the family members of Netaji, who deposed before
the Commission, like CW-30 Prof.Chitra Ghose, CW-31 Krishna Ghose,
CW-32 Nita Ghose and CW-33 Ardhendu Bose, considered the accusation
of his leading a life behind curtain as a great insult to him. They were
indignant at the idea and were just not prepared to accept it. I am inclined to
accept their evidence. In their view, had he been alive, he would have been
roaring like a lion.
The final nail in the coffin of those who contend that Gumnami Baba
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is provided by the evidence of DNA
expert Dr.V.K.Kashyap of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. A
perusal of paragraphs 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the
Mukherjee Commission report show that five out of nine teeth found in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad alongwith samples of blood collected from two
descendants on father's side and three descendants on mother's side of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose were sent to Central Forensic Science
Laboratory,Kolkata for DNA profiling test to fix the identity of the person to
whom the teeth belonged. After subjecting three of the five teeth (Exts. 2 to
4) for DNA profiling, Dr. V.K.Kashyap, DNA Expert and Director of
Laboratory submitted a report that " forwarded teeth (Exts 2 to 4) belonged
to a single human aged male individual - ( alleged Gumnami Baba). The
individual source of the teeth does not belong to either maternal or paternal

[ 116 ]
DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,therefore,cannot be of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose." The Mukherjee Commission has held that since the
only other aged member who stayed with Gumnami Baba was
Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla, the negative finding recorded by
Dr. V.K.Kashyap also militates against the eye witness account.
In my view, had Gumnami Baba been Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
this would not have been the report of the DNA expert Dr.V.K.Kashyap.
I feel it pertinent to mention that evidence led before this Commission also
shows that the only other aged member who lived with Gumnami Baba was
Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla.
It is true that handwritings appearing in some books and journals
found in Ram Bhawan were sent for comparison with handwritings of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose to the handwriting experts but as the Mukherjee
Commission in Para 4.15.9 at page 121 of its report stated that although one
of the experts Sri B.Lal says that handwritings (both in Bengali and English)
were of Netaji, three other experts, namely, Amar Singh, M.L.Sharma and
Dr. S.K.Mondal gave contrary report. In view of such a divided opinion
amongst handwriting experts, the Mukherjee Commission did not accept the
evidence of Sri B.Lal.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to accept the
evidence of CW-41 Sri Arvind Sharma that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
It should be borne in mind that Judicial Commissions (like the
present) only reach conclusions when a fact/facts has/have been proved
beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely because it/they may be true. In
this connection I would like to refer to the time-honoured judgment of the
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State
of Punjab (AIR 1957 Supreme Court page 637) wherein in para 11 the
Supreme Court has held that between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is
a long distance to travel and the inference of guilt can only be drawn when
the said distance has been travelled. I regret that this distance has neither
been travelled by CW-41 Arvind Sharma nor by other witnesses, who have
stated before the Commission that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose. Consequently, the evidence of CW-41 Arvind Sharma that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose cannot be accepted.

[ 117 ]
 Before parting with the evidence of CW-41 Arvind Sharma, I would
like to mention that at page 6 of the compilation he has made 7 prayers of
which prayer No.5 relates to DNA examination of Baba's remains listed at
Sl.No.2250 in the original official inventory of the materials recovered from
the last place of his residence and prayer No.6 is in respect of analysis of
fresh handwriting of Gumnami Baba vis-a-vis that of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
I have considered the aforesaid prayers and earlier mentioned that
Mukherjee Commission of Enquiry got the DNA profiling of the teeth of
Gumnami Baba and the comparision of handwriting of Gumnami Baba and
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose done by experts. The outcome of the reports
of both the DNA expert and handwriting experts has been mentioned by me
above. In my view, this exercise of DNA profiling and comparision of
handwriting cannot be endlessly kept going on.
Similarly, I do not find merit in the other prayers.
So far as prayer No.1 that the Commission should strictly examine the
issue whether Gumnami Baba and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were the
same person or not is concerned, I am conscious of my obligations and have
meticulously examined this issue.
As far as prayer No.2, which pertains to French Intelligence Report, is
concerned, I have dealt with it while evaluating the statement of the witness.
So far as prayer No.3 is concerned, in my view, there is no necessity
to summon the documents mentioned in it because the said documents will
only establish that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose did not die in a plane
crash. It is pertinent to mention that the said conclusion has also been
reached by the Mukherjee Commission. Despite the conclusion reached by
the Mukherjee Commission, I have earlier furnished reasons why on its
basis it cannot be concluded that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
For the same reason, I am not prepared to accede to prayer No.4.
So far as prayer No.7 is concerned, it is a request that all such acts
which are necessary and expedient in the interest of justice may be done.
Whatever in my view was necessary and expedient in the interest of justice
to find out the identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who prior to his

[ 118 ]
death lived in Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad and was cremated on
18.09.1985 (2 days after his death - he died on16.09.1985), I have done
because that was the task assigned to the Commission by the Governor of
Uttar Pradesh, vide notification dated 28.06.2016 issued by the
U.P.Government by which the Commission was created.
5.40 The next witness whose evidence I propose considering is
CW-42 Guru Shakti Singh alias Shakti Singh son of Thakur Guru Basant
Singh,aged about 57 years, resident of Ram Bhawan, Civil Lines,Faizabad.
In short, his evidence shows that :- sometimes in September/October,1982
Dr. R.P.Misra, who was employed as a doctor in Government Hospital,
Faizabad, came to his residence and told him that his grandfather lives in
Ayodhya; responsibility of looking after him was his; and since he had to
continuously visit Ayodhya for discharging it, he enquired from him
whether any portion of his house was vacant and if it was, would he let out
the same to his grandfather. He agreed. One night, about two months later,
Bhagwanji on a wheel-chair alongwith Dr.R.P.Misra and some others
shifted in the portion which he had let out to him on rent. People of
Dr. R.P.Misra's family continuously started visiting Bhagwanji. One day he
(the witness) expressed his desire to Dr. Misra's wife,whom he called mausi,
to meet Bhagwanji. She replied that after pooja she would arrange his
meeting with him. Some days later Mrs. Misra told him that today evening
Bhagwanji had called him. At about 7.00 p.m. he alongwith
Mrs. Misra, went to meet him. They entered inside a room in which there
was a bench,two chairs and a stool. Bhagwanji was in the adjoining room on
the window of which there was a curtain. Bhagwanji talked to him from
behind the curtain. He was sitting on the bench in the outer room and was
impressed by his authoritative tone and the manner of his speech. Thereafter
every Tuesday, whenever he was in Faizabad, he used to meet Bhagwanji
after 8.00 p.m.
The evidence of the witness shows that on 15.09.1985 he learnt that
Bhagwanji was unwell. Dr. R.P. Misra, Dr. P. Banerjee and some others
were attending on him. When he enquired from Dr. R.P. Misra about the
condition of Bhagwanji, he told him in a very bitter tone not to worry as

[ 119 ]
they were looking after him. On 16.09.1985 Bhagwanji died. The next day
when he enquired from Dr.R.P.Misra as to when his cremation would be
done, he said in the same tone that they were waiting for people to come
from Calcutta. When till the evening of 18.09.1985 people from Calcutta did
not come, Dr. R.P.Misra said that they would take Bhagwanji to Ayodhya
for cremation. However, while they were on the way for cremation, all of a
sudden the van, in which Bhagwanji's dead body was being carried, turned
towards Guptar Ghat,Faizabad, and in the presence of police and
administration,Bhagwanji's cremation was done at a place where cremations
are not done.
On 30.10.1985 it was published on the front page of a local news
paper 'Nai Log' that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He
also had a similar doubt which was confirmed after reading the said news.
On 29.09.1985 Lalita Bose came to his house at Faizabad and
expressed a desire to see the room in which Bhagwanji used to stay. Since a
lock had been put on the said room by the district administration, he
alongwith Lalita Bose went to District Magistrate,Faizabad, who directed
the Inspector Kotwali and SDM to open the lock of the room. When the lock
of the room was opened she saw amongst the articles in it her father's
dissentient report and a letter which she said was written by her uncle
Subhash Chandra Bose. She alongwith him went to the District
Magistrate,Faizabad; asked him to order an enquiry; and to keep the
belongings which were inside the room safely. On that the District
Magistrate told her that she should approach the Court. He also told her that
since the last two months it was being published in the newspapers that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, why she had not come
earlier on which she replied that previously also a large number of claims
were made about persons being Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and when
they went, they found them to be bogus. She further told him that at the
instance of some family members she had come to Faizabad to find out the
truth.
Ram Prakash Singh, a social worker, who was close to Mr.Chandra
Shekhar (former Prime Minister of India) arranged a meeting of Lalita Bose
with the then Chief Minister of U.P. Sri Veer Bahadur Singh in
[ 120 ]
January,1986 and the latter told her that he was helpless and asked her to
appraoch the Court.
Thereafter Lalita Bose alongwith Vishwa Bandhu Tiwari and Kausar
Husain came to Lucknow and filed a petition in the Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court wherein an interim order was passed by the High
Court in pursuance of which an inventory was made with respect to the
belongings of Gumnami Baba.
The evidence of Shakti Singh further shows that in the year 2010 he
filed a writ petition at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
which the Court ordered " The Government of U.P. is further directed to
consider for appointment of a committee consisting of a team of experts and
higher officers, headed by a Retired Judge of High Court, to hold an enquiry
with regard to the identity of late Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who
resided in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and cremated on 18.09.1985(supra). Let
a decision be taken expeditiously, say within a period of three months."
In the last paragraph of his examination-in-chief the witness has
stated that his belief is that merely from the recovery of some articles it
cannot be concluded that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose but if a comparison of handwriting of Gumnami
Baba and Subhash Chandra Bose is made by experts and a DNA
examination of matress, bedsheets, pillows and clothes of Gumnami Baba
with the DNA of the members of Netaji's family is done, it would be clear
that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
It is pertinent to mention that the witness was subjected to extensive
cross-examination by the Commission. He admitted therein that including
him Gumnami Baba never met anyone face to face. He always talked to
people from behind a curtain. He also admitted therein that between the time
Gumnami Baba died and till he was cremated, he was all the time by the
side of his dead body and the decision to cremate him at Guptar Ghat was of
Dr. R.P.Misra.
In cross-examination, he was also asked that before Gumnami Baba's
death (on 16.09.1985) a large number of people of the family of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose including Ardhendu Bose's father (who was real
younger brother of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose) were alive and had
[ 121 ]
Gumnami Baba been Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, they would have met
him. He replied that he can give no answer to this.
The witness admitted in cross-examination that he had deposed before
the Mukherjee Commission but stated that he does not remember whether he
had said before it that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, as
he has no copy of his deposition made before the Mukherjee Commission.
The last question put to him during cross-examination was whether
between the time he had let out his premises to Gumnami Baba (it was about
December,1982) and today (16.05.2017) he had told any
person/organisation/officer that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose to which he replied in the negative.
I have perused the statement of Shakti Singh. He has admitted therein
that he never saw Gumnami Baba face to face and the latter always talked to
him from behind a curtain. In my opinion, this itself is sufficient for
rejecting his claim that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
It is pertinent to mention that on account of this fact, the Mukherjee
Commission did not accept his evidence with respect to identity of
Gumnami Baba (see the last para at page 115 of the Mukherjee Commission
Report).
There are other weighty reasons as to why I am unable to accept his
belief that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. I am not
prepared to accept his answer that he did not remember whether before the
Mukherjee Commission he had stated that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose because he did not have a copy of his statement
before that Commission with him. Shakti Singh in his statement has given
out his age as about 57 years. This means when his deposition was recorded
before the Mukherjee Commission he was aged about 47 years. He is an
educated person. His statement shows that he has received University
education. In my opinion, had he stated before the Mukherjee Commission
that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he would have
candidly mentioned this fact to this Commission. I am not prepared to
condone his answer on the ground of lapse of memory. This, in my view, is
the second reason for rejecting his claim that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.

[ 122 ]
 Thirdly, in his cross-examination, in answer to question No.29 Shakti
Singh admitted that within one year of Gumnami Baba shifting to his house
he had realised that he was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and in answer to
question No.34 therein he admitted that before today i.e. 16.05.2017 he had
not told any person/organisation/officer that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
Since in his examination-in-chief Shakti Singh had stated that
Dr. R.P.Misra had requested him to let out his premises to Gumnami Baba
sometimes about September/October,1982 and the later shifted in it about
one and half months later, it is clear that Gumnami Baba shifted in Shakti
Singh's premises sometimes about December,1982.
The fact that between December,1982 to 16-05.2017 i.e. for nearly
34 years Shakti Singh did not mention to anyone that Gumnami Baba was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose renders it very unsafe for the Commission to
accept this claim of his. In my view, had he been convinced that Gumnami
Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he would have told all and sundry
about it during the said thirty four years. The silence of the witness is
ominous and by itself is a sufficient ground for rejecting his claim that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
It should be borne in mind that the Supreme Court times out of
number has disbelieved witnesses on account of non-disclosure of a vital
fact by them for a long time.
Fourthly, the report of the DNA expert Dr. V.K.Kashyap in respect of
the teeth found in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad (I have referred to it in some detail
while dealing with the evidence of Arvind Sharma CW-41) also belies the
claim of the witness that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I do not want to burden my report by reiterating the said details.
Fifthly, it is impossible to believe that a courageous man like Netaji
who resigned from the Indian Civil Service, formed the Indian National
Army (INA), fought for India's independence, formed a government in
exile, would have lived the life of a coward for four decades, hiding behind
a curtain; a fact which Mr.Shakti Singh wants the Commission to believe.
The evidence of the immediate family members of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, namely, Prof. Dwarka Nath Bose (CW29), Ardhendu Bose

[ 123 ]
(CW-33), Prof. Chitra Ghose (CW-30), Krishna Ghose (CW-31) and Nita
Ghose (CW-32), the first two being the real nephews of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose (sons of his real brothers) and the last three being his real
nieces (daughters of his real brothers) shows their indignation at the thought
that their uncle Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose would have lived the life of a
coward, hiding behind a curtain.
Sixthly, the evidence of CW-33 Ardhendu Bose shows that when
Gumnami Baba died (it was on 16.09.1985), his father (Ardhendu Bose's
father) was alive and if he had even an iota of doubt that Gumnami Baba
was his own brother Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, he would have visited
him or asked him (Ardhendu Bose) to visit him at Faizabad because in
connection with his business he periodically visited Kanpur (Kanpur is
hardly 200 km from Faizabad). I find the said reason to be convincing.
Lastly, the evidence of Dr. R.P.Misra (CW-39) and Shitla Singh
(CW-36) shows that news of death of Gumnami Baba was sent to Calcutta
to Dr. Pabitra Mohan Roy and others,who were close associates of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose, and the cremation of Gumnami Baba was delayed,
as it was expected that they would attend it. The evidence of Dr. R.P.Misra
shows that when no one from Calcutta came till the evening of 18.09.1985,
it was decided to perform the cremation of Gumnami Baba. The evidence of
Shitla Singh shows that in an interview Dr. Pabitra Mohan Roy admitted
that he had received the news of Gumnami Baba's death but neither he nor
his associates attended his cremation. This conduct of Dr.Pabitra Mohan
Roy and others shows that they did not believe that Gumnami Baba was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose because had they, they would have certainly
attended his cremation which took place at Guptar Ghat,Faizabad two days
after his death i.e. on 18.09.1985 (he died on 16.09.1985). This
circumstance shows that the claim of Shakti Singh that Gumnami Baba was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is untenable.
For the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of Shakti Singh does not
inspire any confidence.
I would be failing in my fairness if before parting with Shakti Singh's
statement, I do not mention that Shakti Singh has stated that if the
handwritings of Gumnami Baba and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose are sent

[ 124 ]
to handwriting experts for comparison and the matress, bedsheets,pillows
and clothes of Gumnami Baba alongwith DNA samples of the family
members of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose are sent to the DNA expert, it
would be clear whether Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I am afraid that such a exercise is not called for. While dealing with the
evidence of Arvind Sharma (CW-41), I have stated in some detail that the
Mukherjee Commission sent the teeth of Gumnami Baba which were
recovered from Ram Bhawan,Faizabad alongwith samples of blood of
family members of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose from the paternal and
maternal side for DNA examination and the handwriting of Gumnami Baba
and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose to the handwriting experts. The outcome
of the reports of both DNA expert and handwriting experts has been
mentioned by me while dealing with the evidence of Arvind Sharma
(CW-41). In my view, this exercise of DNA profiling and comparison of
handwriting cannot be endlessly kept going on.
I may also mention that in his statement Shakti Singh has stated that
the direction of the High Court to the U.P.Government was to consider for
appointment of a committee consisting of a team of experts and higher
officers headed by a retired Judge of High Court to hold an enquiry with
regard to the identity of late Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who resided in
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and was cremated on 18.09.1985.
Perhaps Mr.Shakti Singh wants to contend that the said direction has
not been followed and instead of a committee consisting of a team of experts
and higher officers headed by a retired High Court Judge, on the direction of
Governor of Uttar Pradesh, the U.P.Government,vide notification dated
28.06.2016 constituted a Judicial Commission under the Commission of
Inquiry Act,1952 headed by me to find out the identity of Gumnami Baba.
In my view, since the High Court had merely directed the
U.P.Government to consider the appointment of a committee consisting of a
team of experts and higher officers headed by a retired High Court Judge to
find out the identity of Gumnami Baba, it was open to the U.P.Government
to only constitute the instant Commission.
A perusal of the notification dated 28.06.2016 by which the present
Commission was constituted shows that it was set up because the Governor

[ 125 ]
of U.P. considered it expedient in public interest to determine the identity of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who prior to his death lived in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985 and
also in view of the aforesaid direction of the High Court to constitute it to
determine the identity of Gumnami Baba.
Since para 4 of the notification leaves it to open to the Chairman of
the Commission to decide whether there is any need for experts to assist it
and in my opinion, there was no such need, I did not make any
recommendation to the U.P.Government for appointment of experts.
For the reasons mentioned above the aforesaid greivance is without
substance.
5.41 CW-43 Bijoy Kumar Nag, son of late Sushil Chandra Nag R/O
Srinvantu, C/58 Panehasayar, Kolkata-700094 sent an affidavit, sworn
before a Notary, through Mr.Rudra Jyoti Bhattacharjee, an Advocate. Since
in Mr.Bhattacharjee's letter dated 23/05.2017 (alongwith which the affidavit
was sent) it has been mentioned that Bijoy Kumar Nag is aged, not of sound
health and in a position to travel to Lucknow and Faizabad, the Commission
has treated the said affidavit as the statement of CW-43 Bijoy Kumar Nag.
I have perused the affidavit of Bijoy Kumar Nag who has
categorically stated therein that Gumnami Baba (also known as Bhagwanji)
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who prior to his death lived inside a
room in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad; talked to people from behind a curtain; and
excepting Dr. P.Banerjee (since deceased), Dr. R.P.Misra and a few persons
from Kolkata, none had seen him.
In the said affidavit he has also mentioned that the body which was
cremated on 18th September,1985 was not of Gumnami Baba,who had left
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad, with the assistance of Dr.R.P.Misra, but instead it
was an unidentified body.
Since the notification of the U.P.Government dated 28.06.2016, by
which this Commissioin was constituted,directs me to find out the identity
of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, who prior to his death lived in Ram
Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad and whose dead body was cremated on 18th
September, 1985 and according to the affidavit of Mr.Bijoy Kumar Nag,
Gumnami Baba's dead body was not cremated on 18th September, 1985, as

[ 126 ]
he had left Ram Bhawan, Faizabad with the assistance of Dr.R.P.Misra and
instead an unidentified body was cremated, his affidavit cannot be taken into
consideration by the Commission in determining the identity of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji.
Before parting with the affidavit of Mr.Bijoy Kumar Nag I may
mention that neither Dr. R.P.Misra, who was examined by the Commission
as CW-40, nor any other witness has stated before the Commission that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji left Ram Bhawan (with the assistance of
Dr. R.P.Misra) and only Bijoy Kumar Nag and CW-12 Krishna Kumar
stated that the corpse which was cremated on 18th September,1985 was not
of Gumnami Baba. Excepting Bijoy Kumar Nag and Krishna Kumar, the
evidence of the witnesses, who deposed before the Commission, is that
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji died at Ram Bhawan,Faizabad on 16th
September,1985 and his dead body was cremated on 18th September,1985
at Guptar Ghat,Faizabad.
5.42 The affidavits of Tarun Kumar MukhoPadhyay, R/O 2/1,
Brindaban Mullick Ist Lane, Kolkata-700009 and Surajit Dasgupta R/0 25/1,
Guruprasad Chowdhury Lane, Kolkata-700006 have been treated as their
statements before the Commission (CW-44 Tarun Kumar Mukhopadhyay
and CW-45 Surajit Dasgupta) in view of the letter of Mr.Rudra Jyoti
Bhattacharjee, (an Advocate) dated 23.05.2017 (alongwith it the said
affidavits were sent) wherein it has been mentioned that they are aged, not
of sound health and in a position to travel to Lucknow and Faizabad. Since
both Tarun Kumar Mukhopadhyay and Surajit Dasgupta claim to have met
Bhagwanji/ Netaji while he was staying at Brahmkund,Ayodhya, I am
considering their evidence together. They claim that they had seen
Bhagwanji there face to face and were certain that he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.CW-44 Tarun Kumar Mukhopadhyay claims to have met
Bhagwanji in Brahmkund, Ayodhya in December,1979 and CW-45 Surajit
Dasgupta there in September,1982 and February,1983. I am afraid I am not
prepared to accept their claim because the evidence which has been led
before the Commission shows that Bhagwanji only once stayed in
Brahmkund, Ayodhya and that was between 15.01.1975 to 15.05.1978 in the
house of CW-28 Manjeet Singh. Thereafter he shifted to Lucknauwa Hata in
Ayodhya and from there to the house of CW-42 Shakti Singh called Ram
[ 127 ]
Bhawan, situate in Civil Lines,Faizabad, in December,1982, where he lived
till the end and died on 16.09.1985. It is thus clear that in December,1979
and September,1982 Bhagwanji lived in Lucknauwa Hata in Ayodhya and
in February,1983 in Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad and, therefore, there
was no question of CW-44 Tarun Kumar Mukhopadhyay of meeting him in
Brahmkund, Ayodhya in December, 1979 and of CW-45 Surajit Dasgupta
meeting him there in September, 1982 and February, 1983. To me their
claim of meeting Gumnami Baba in Brahmkund, Ayodhya does not appear
to be correct. At any rate that they met Gumnami Baba face to their claim
face in Brahmkund,Ayodhya cannot be accepted.
In this connection I would like to advert to the evidence of CW-28
Manjeet Singh, who stated that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was a
tenant in his house No.530/1, Parikrama Road, Brahmkund,Ayodhya from
15.01.1975 to 15.05.1978 and excepting Dr. T.C.Banerjee and
Dr. P.Banerjee, who, in connection with his treatment,used to enter inside
his room never met people face to face. Manjeet Singh's evidence shows
that Gumnami Baba used to live inside a room on the door of which there
was a thick curtain and the person/persons with whom he used to talk sat on
a dari in a adjacent room but on account of the curtain they could not
see him.
As the evidence before the Commission shows thatGumnami Baba
only once stayed in Bhrahmkund,Ayodhya and that as a tenant at the house
of Manjeet Singh from 15.01.1975 to 15.05.1978 ( as deposed to by CW-28
Manjeet Singh), the averment in the affidavit of Tarun Kumar
Mukhopadhyay that he met Gumnami Baba in Brahmkund,Ayodhya in
December,1979 and that in the affidavit of Surajit Dasgupta that he met him
there in September,1982 and February,1983 cannot be accepted. The
averment in their affidavits that they met Gumnami Baba face to face in
Brahmkund,Ayodhya also cannot be accepted on the face of the evidence of
CW-28 Manjeet Singh.
Before parting with the statement of CW-44 Tarun Kumar
Mukhopadhyay and CW-45 Surajit Dasgupta, I feel it pertinent to mention
that almost every witness,who deposed before the Commission,stated that
Gumnami Baba never met people face to face and used to always talk to
them from behind a curtain.
[ 128 ]
 PART IV
Classification of evidence of witnesses for determining the
identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
1. This is necessary because the notification of U.P. Government
dated 28.06.2016 (by which the Commission has been constituted) provides
that it shall find out the identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji who
prior to his death lived in Ram Bhawan, Faizabad and whose last rites were
performed on 18.09.1985.
2. The evidence of the witnesses who deposed before the Commission
or whose affidavits were considered as their statements before the
Commission (in all they are 45 in number) can be classified under six heads,
mentioned below :
1 2 3 4 5 6
Witnesses who Witness who Witnesses who Witness who Witness who Witnesses who
claim that claim that claims that K.D. claims that claims that a claim that Swami
Gumnami Baba Gumnami Baba Updhyay was Gumnami Baba Mahatma who Shardanand, who
alias Bhagwanji alias hagwanji Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji lived in village lived in
was/may have was not Netaji alias Bhagwanji was like his Kaithi in district Varanasi,
been Netaji Subhash Chandra grandfather Varanasi for two Shoulmari
1. CW-36 Shitla
Subhash Chandra Bose months in 1951 Ashram, Falakata
Singh 1. CW-40 Dr. R.P.
Bose. and thereafter Coochbihar,
1. CW-22 Misra
1. CW-1 Jayanti went to Shoulmari West Bengal and
Vishambhar
Rakshik Ashram in died in Dehradun
Nath Arora
2. CW-2 Amiya Falakata, in 1977 was
2. CW-29 Prof.
Rakshit. Coochbehar, West Netaji Subhash
Dwarka Nath
3. CW-3 Anuj Bengal was Netaji Chandra Bose.
Bose.
Dhar Subhash Chandra
3. CW-30 Prof. 1. CW-6 Shyam
4. CW-4 Bose-
Chitra Ghose. Charan Pandey
Chandrachur 4. CW-31 Mrs. 1. CW16 Shyam
2. CW-14 Uma
Ghose Krishna Lal Singh
Charan Pandey
5. CW-5 Surajit Ghose.
Shyam Lal Singh
Panicker 5. CW-32 Smt. 3. CW-15 Aditya
says in 1958 he
6. CW-7 Rita Nita Ghose. Nath Pandey
went to Bomay
Banerjee 6. CW-33 4. CW-17
and thereafter had
7. CW-8 Prof. Ardhendu Vishram Singh
no information
Dashrath Singh Bose.
about Babaji 5. CW-18 Ram
8. CW-9 Ravindra 7. CW-34
(Mahatma) Shanker Singh
Nath Shukla Shibhashish
9. Cw-10 Ashok Nag.
Tandon 8. CW-35 Arup
Kumar Mitra.
10. CW-11
Ayodhya Prasad
Gupta

[ 129 ]
11. CW-12
Krishna Kumar
12. CW-13
Rakesh Srivastava
13. CW-19 Amita
Singh
14. CW-20
Madan Mohan
Tripathi
15. CW-21 Atul
Kumar Singh
16. CW-23
Manish Joshi
17. CW-24
Netram Singh
18. CW-25 Dr.
Shanker
Chatterjee
19. CW-26 Ram
Prakash Tripathi
20. CW-27 Ram
Pratap Yadav
21. CW-28
Manjeet Singh
22. CW-37 Nand
Kumar Misra
23. CW-38
Krishna Kumar
Misra
24. CW-39 Shiv
Prasad
25. CW-41
Arvind Sharma
26. CW-42 Guru
Shakti Singh
27. CW-43 Bijoy
Kumar Nag
28. CW-44 Tarun
Kumar
Mukhopadhyay
29. CW-45 Surajit
Dasgupta

3. Evidence of witnesses mentioned in Column Nos. 4 and 5, for

reasons mentioned therein, cannot be taken into consideration for
determining the identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji.
4. Evidence of witnesses whose names are mentioned in Column No.6
cannot be taken into consideration for determining the identity of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji because they say that one Swami Shardanand who

[ 130 ]
lived in Shoulmari Ashram in Phalakata, Coochbehar,West Bengal and died
in Dehradun in 1977 was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and the notification
of the U.P.Government dated 28.06.2016, by which this Commission has
been constituted, provides that it shall determine the identity of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji, who prior to his death lived in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last rites were performed on 18.09.1985. Thus,
their evidence is beyond the terms of reference made to the Commission.

[ 131 ]
 PART V
Evidence of recovery of articles from that portion of the premises of
Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad in which Gumnami Baba alias Bhgwanji
lived from about December,1982 till his death i.e. 16.09.1985.
1. As seen earlier on the direction of the Hon'ble Governor of Uttar
Pradesh the U.P.Government has constituted this Commission to find out
the identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji,who prior to his death lived
in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose last rites were performed on
18.09.1985.
2. In para 1 of Part III of this report, I have said that the conclusion of
the Commission on the identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji would
primarily depend on the evidence of witnesses, who have deposed before it.
Thereafter in the said part I have evaluated in great detail the testimony of
45 witnesses, who either deposed in personbefore the Commission or whose
affidavits sworn before a Notary,were treated as their statements before it.
3. Apart from the evidence of the aforesaid 45 witnesses, in my view,
another source of evidence (though of a much lesser value) which the
Commission would have to take into consideration for determining the
identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji would be the articles recovered
from that portion of Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad in which Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji resided from about December,1982 till his death i.e.
16.09.1985.
4. It is pertinent to mention that Gumnami Baba died on 16.09.1985
and his dead body was cremated on 18.09.1985 at Guptar Ghat,Faizabad.
Evidene of CW-10 Ashok Tandon shows that after his death (in his presence
and that of others), the City Magistrate,Faizabad opened the lock of the
room in which articles relating to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji were
kept. On inspection he and others found that there wasenormous literature
and correspondence in English, Hindi and Bangla pertaining to Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. In cross-examination CW-10 Ashok Tandon
admitted that on the said material he concluded that Gumnami Baba was
none other than Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

[ 132 ]
 5. Evidence of Ashok Tandon also shows that his inference that
Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is also based on the fact
that the handwritings appearing in some books and journals found in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad were sent for comparison with the admitted handwritings
of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose to Mr.B.Lal, who found they were of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
6. A perusal of the statement of CW-12 Krishna Kumar also shows
that he concluded that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
because a large number of books and articles etc. pertaining to Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose wererecovered from the room in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad in which Gumnami Baba used to live prior to his death.
7. The evidence of CW-3 Anuj Dhar shows that he took samples of
handwritings of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji from Ashok Tandon and
alongwith CW-4 Chandrachur Ghose did a detailed joint investigation on
the issue of identity of Gumnami Baba. His evidence also shows that they
prepared a joint report, which he filed before the Commission. His evidence
further shows that the handwritings appearing in some books and journals
found in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad were sent for comparison with the admitted
handwritings of Netaji and Mr.B.Lal, Ex. Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents, New Delhi has given a firm opinion that those
handwritings (both English and Hindi) were of Netaji.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence of Mr.B.Lal coupled with
the recovery of a large number of articlesdirectly connected with the family
of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose (from those rooms of Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad in which Gumnami Baba alias Bhgwanji used to live),
like individual photos of Prabhawati Devi (mother of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose), Janaki Nath Bose (father of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose),
their joint photograph, an umbrella belonging to Janaki Nath Bose,
spectacles having round lenses (the like of which Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose used to put on) some letters sent by immediate family members of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, a large number of books in English, Hindi
and Bangla, on a large number of subjects, (some of which pertain to Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose), some of the witnesses have tried to establish that
Gumnami Baba was none other than Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

[ 133 ]
 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid claim of the
witnesses and, in my view, merely from the aforesaid recovery, it cannot be
inferred that it was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who lived in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad in disguise as Gumnami Baba. The aforesaid recovery, in
my opinion, is equally compatible with the inference that another person
may have been living there.
10. The evidence of CW-42 Guru Shakti Singh alias Shakti Singh
shows that he also feels the same way and this is apparent from the answer
given by him to Question No.23 put to him during cross-examination. The
said Question reads:
‘‘kya saaman jo kisi se sambandh rakhta hai kewal uske prapt
hone se yeh niskarsh nikala ja sakta hai ki jiska saaman hai wahi
vyakti rah raha tha.’’
His answer to it was as follows:
"Iske baare me upar apne bayan me maine bataya hai ki Netaji se
sambandhit tamam saamano ke saath rakh dene se yeh sabit nahi
hoga ki Gumnami Baba hi Netaji the, kintu yadi Gumnami Baba ke
pass se paaye gaye tamam handwriting ko yadi Netaji ki handwriting
se visheshagyon dwara milan karaya jay to yeh baat jaroor sabit hogi
ki Netaji ki handwriting me likhne wala 16.09.1985 tak jinda tha."
11. So far as the evidence of handwriting experts is concerned a
perusal of paragraphs 6.16, 6.17 and 6.18 on pages 326 to 329 of this Part of
the Report would show that out of four handwriting experts, the evidence of
only one shows that handwritings were of Netaji but three of them gave a
contrary opinion. Consequently, in my view, Mr.Shakti Singh is not justified
in saying that "Netaji ki handwriting me likhne wala 16.09.1985 tak jinda
tha".
12. In my view, the said recovery would fall in the category of
circumstantial evidence and it is well-settled that circumstantial evidence
can only be accepted as conclusive if four requirements, enumerated
hereinafter, are met:
(i) circumstances are firmly established;
(ii) they unerringly lead to the inference sought to be drawn;

[ 134 ]
 (iii) they are wholly inconsistent with any other inference;
(iv) they are incapable of being explained on any other reasonable
hypothesis.
If the said norms are borne in mind, it cannot be conclusively said that
the said recovery shows that it was none other than Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose,who lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad in disguise as Gumnami Baba
alias Bhagwanji. To repeat, it is equally compatible with another person
living there.
13. In this connection, it would be apposite to refer to the evidence of
CW-29 Prof.Dwarka Nath Bose, CW-30 Prof.Chitra Ghose and CW-33
Ardhendu Bose (CW-29 and CW-33 are the real nephews of Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose,being sons of his real brothers and CW-30 is the real niece of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, being the daughter of his real brother).
CW-29 Prof.Dwarka Nath Bose filed before the Commission a cutting of
Times of India, dated March 17,2016(Ext. C-16), which on his request was
taken on record and read as a part of his statement. Its perusal shows that the
photos of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's parents etc. were sent to Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji by Mr.Bijoy Nag on his request (request of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji).
14. Here it would be useful to advert to the evidence of CW-30
Prof.Chitra Ghose, whose affidavit has been treated by the Commission as
her statement. In para vii of the said affidavit she has stated as follows:
"Much has been made of items in his possession of a personal
nature to the Bose family and Subhash in particular, for example
family photographs, spectacles with round lenses, an umbrella
belonging to Subhash'sfather Janakinath etc. The suggestive nature of
these items is diluted by the revelation that the said items were brought
to 'Gurnnami Baba' from Kolkata by his followers', reportedly even at
times on his specific request.”
In this connection, it would also be useful to refer to the vidence of
CW-33 Ardhendu Bose, who at page 5 of his deposition, has stated thus:
"I understand that on the basis of some of the articles recovered
from Ram Bhawan,Faizabad like photos of parents of Netaji Subhash
[ 135 ]
 Chandra Bose, a pair of spectacles having round lenses and some
books relevant to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose a thoery is being
propagated that Gumnami Baba was none other than Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose in hiding. Such a theory is not credible as some of the
aforesaid articles were sent to Gumnami Baba on his request by
Mr.BijoyNag. At any rate, from the recovery of these articles, it
cannot be conclusively said that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
was Gumnami Baba, as I have deposed earlier, the DNA
evidence demolishes the claim that Gumnami Baba was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose."
16. So far as the evidence of handwriting expert Mr.B.Lal Kapoor is
concerned, it is not conclusive in nature. Mr.Anuj Dhar merely on his
evidence has sought to contend that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. It appears that he was oblivious of the fact
that the Mukherjee Commission of Enquiry sent the handwritings
appearing in some books and journals found in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad for
comparison with the admitted handwritings of Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose to Mr. Amar Singh, Mr. M.L.Sharma of the Office of Government
Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Shimla and
Dr. S.K.Mondal, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of West
Bengal,Kolkata and all three of themgave an opinion contrary to that of
Mr.B.Lal. It was on account of this fact that the Mukherjee Commission of
Enquiry did not give credence to the evidence of Mr.B.Lal.
17. In this connection, I would like to advert to the averments
contained para 2 of the statement of Prof.Chitra Ghose and para 4.15.9 at
page 121 of the Mukherjee Enquiry Commission Report.
In para 2 of her deposition, Prof.Chitra Ghose has stated thus:
‘’The Justice Mukherjee Commission also oversaw the conduct of
hand-writing examinations and comparisons in respect of samples
from Netaji and those purporting to be of ‘Gumnami Baba'.
According to one retired expert, in his 'firm opnion' the sample
writings from 'Gumnami Baba', namely those found in 'some books
and journals’ were of Netaji. Three other, equally-eminent hand-
writing experts then active in their profession,delivered a contrary
[ 136 ]
 opinion. The Justice Mukherjee Commission, in light of the firm
majority opinion, saw no need to pursue the matter."
In para 4.15.9 at page l21 of its report,The Mukherjee Commission
has observed thus:
"The reports of the experts to whom the handwritings appearing
in some books and journals found in 'Rambhawan' were sent for
comparison with the admitted handwritings of Netaji materially
differ. While one of them viz. Shri B.Lal,Ex-Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents,New Delhi (CW-119) has given a firm opinion
that those (both Bengali and English) were of Netaji, Shri Amar Singh
and Shri M.L.Sharma (CW- 121) of the Office of the Government
Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Simla,
who have filed a joint report, and Dr.S.K.Mondal of Forensic Science
Laboratory,Governmentof West Bengal, Kolkata (CW-120) have
given a contrary opinion. Such divergent opinion and absence of any
evidence from any person conversant with the handwriting of Netaji
that the questioned writings were of Netaji is another impediment to
the safe acceptance of the oral version given in this regard."
18. As a matter of fact, the recovery, evidence demolishes the claim
of those who contend that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was none other
than Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The consistent evidence which has been led before the Commission is
that the only other person, who stayed with Gumnami Baba in Ram
Bhawan, Civil Lines, Faizabad was his Sewika Smt.Saraswati Devi
Shukla(now she is no more). The evidence of CW-29 Prof.Dwarka Nath
Bose, CW-30 Prof. Chitra Ghose, CW-32 Nita Ghose and CW-33 Ardhendu
Bose shows that from Ram Bhawan,Civil Lines,Faizabad where Gumnami
Baba lived prior to his death, teeth were collected by the Mukherjee
Commission of Enquiry alongwith samples of blood collected from two
descendants on father's side and three descendants on mother's side of Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose. The said Commission sent them to Central Forensic
Science Laboratory,Kolkata for DNA profiling to fix the identity of the
person to whom the teeth belonged. After subjecting three of the teeth
(Exts.2 to 4) for DNA examination, the DNA expert Dr.V.K.Kashyap,
Director of the said Laboratory concluded that they belong to a single
[ 137 ]
human aged male
(alleged Gumnami Baba). The individual source of the teeth does not belong
to either maternal or paternal DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,
therefore, cannot be of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The aforesaid witnesses stated that since the only other aged member
who stayed with Gumnami Baba wasSmt.Saraswati Devi Shukla, the report
of Dr.Kashyap demolishes the plea that Gumnami Baba was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
19. In this connection, I feel it pertinent to refer to paras 4.15.10 and
4.15.11 at pages 121 and 122 of the Mukherjee Enquiry Commission
Report, which read thus:
"4.15.10. Five teeth out of nine, found in 'Ram Bhawan'
alongwith samples of blood collected from two descendants on the
father's side and three descendants on the mother's side of Netaji
were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata for
DNA profiling test to fix the identity of the person to whom the teeth
belonged. After subjecting three of the five teeth to the above test
Dr.V.K.Kashyap, DNA Expert and Director of the Laboratory
submitted a detailed report with the following opinion:
"From the morphological examination and analysis of SRY gene,
mt DNA (HVS I & HVS II), and Y-STR loci in the forwarded Exhibits
1-10,it can be concluded that forwarded- (Exhibits 2 to 4) belong to a
single human aged male individual -( alleged Gumnami Baba). The
individual- source of the teeth does not belong to either maternal or
paternal DNA lineage of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, therefore,
cannot be of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose."
"4.15.11 He was thereafter examined by this Commission as CW-
126 in course of which his report was exhibited (Ext.222A). He was
cross-examined at length by some of the deponents to bring home
their point that no reliance could be placed on his opinion but their
attempt failed.Since the report categorically states that all the teeth
belonged to a single human aged male individual and since except
Gumnami Baba, the only other aged member who stayed with him all
along was Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla, the negative finding recorded
[ 138 ]
 by Dr.Kashyap quoted earlier also militates against the eyewitnesses'
account."
20 A perusal of paras 4.15.10 and 4.15.11 of the Mukherjee
Commission Enquiry Report show that CW-29 Prof.Dwarka Nath Bose,
CW-30 Prof.Chitra Ghose,CW-32 Nita Ghose and CW-33 Ardhendu Bose
are justified in contending that DNA examination of the teeth of Gumnami
Baba, done under the aegis of Mukherjee Enquiry Commission, demolishes
the claim made by those who contend that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
21. Before parting with the aspect of the DNA profiling of the teeth of
Gumnami Baba, I would like to refer to paras 6.3.11,6.3.12 and 6.3.13 of the
compilation jointly prepared by CW-3 Anuj Dhar and CW-4 Chandrachur
Ghose, which, on their request, was taken on record by the Commission and
read as part of their statement. In paras 6.3.11, 6.3.12 and 6.3.13 of his
compilation Mr Anuj Dhar has contended that conclusion of Mukherjee
Commission that the DNA found from the teeth of Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji did not match with that of paternal and maternal relatives of
Netaji cannot be sustained, in view of the findings of the Division Bench in
the aforesaid two Writ Petitions (Writ Petition No.Misc.Bench 929 of 1986:
Miss Lalita Bose and others vs. State of U.P. and others and Connected Writ
Petition No.Misc.Bench 10877 of 2010: Subhash Chandra Bose Rashtriya
Vichar Kendra vs. State of U.P.and others) that there was no evidence that
five teeth found in Ram Bhawan sent for DNA testing were of Gumnami
Baba aliasBhagwanji and who were the persons, who retained the teeth of
Bhagwanji after cremation. With profound respect to the Division Bench, I
regret that I cannot subscribe to the aforesaid view because the definite
evidence which has been led before the Commission is that excepting
Smt.Saraswati Devi Shukla, who was Sewika of Gumnami Baba and is no
more, no other person resided with him at Ram Bhawan,Civil
Lines,Faizabad from where the said teeth were recovered.
Since no evidence has been led before the Commission to show that
the said teeth were subsequently planted and the evidence led before it
shows that the room from where they were recovered was locked, the
presumption, in my view, would be (as held by the Mukherjee Enquiry

[ 139 ]
Commission) that they belonged to Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji.It is
pertinent to mention that no evidence has been led before the Commission to
show that the said teeth did not belong to Gumnami Baba.
22. Since the DNA evidence with respect to teeth of Gumnami Baba
demolishes the claim of those who contend that he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, it becomes crystal clear that it was not Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose but some other person,who lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad.
Consequently the aforesaid recoveries lose all relevance and cannot be a
basis for concluding that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose.
23. Another example of how the recovery evidence demolishes the
claim of those who contend that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was none
other than Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose came to my knowledge on
22.06.2017 when I did inspection of Chhota Box 5/5 and Bara Box 4/5 in
Treasury, Collectorate,Faizabad, in which some of the articles recovered
from that portion of Ram Bhawan, Faizabad, in which Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji used to live, were kept.
It is pertinent to mention that during inspection of the said boxes I
took notes in my own handwriting. The said notes run into 9 pages and the
last page of my notes has been signed by me. The said notes are on record.
Since the said boxes contained letters/correspondence in Bengali, a
language with which I was not familiar, I took alongwith me Mr.Ronodeb
Ghose, resident of 10,Gopalnagar, Krishna Nagar,Kanpur Road, Lucknow,
who was well-versed in Bengali language to explain to me in English what
was written/mentioned in the said letters/correspondence.
In Chhota Box 5/5 there was a letter in Bengali. Mr.Ronodeb Ghose
went through the entire letter and told me that its substance in English is as
under:
It is dated 16.10.1980. It is sent by Bulbul from Calcutta. It is
addressed to Shricharan Kamlendu (Guruji). It is mentioned therein, 'when
will you come to my place. If youcome on the date of birthday of Netaji, we
will have great pleasure'.

[ 140 ]
 The evidence of CW-10 Ashok Tandon, who extensively examined
the enormous quantity of literature,correspondence and documents kept in
that room of Ram Bhawan in which Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji lived
shows that on its basis he concluded that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji
was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. His evidence also shows that no one
could take the name of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and he was referred to
by words like Shricharnesh, Shradha Shabdesh, Swamiji etc.
24. It appears that Shricharan Kamlendu(Guruji) in Bulbul's letter
dated 16.10.1980 was Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji. Since in the said
letter Bulbul has categorically mentioned that 'if you come on the date of
birthday of Netaji, we will have great pleasure', it is obvious that Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
25. The aforesaid discussion makes it clear that on the basis of
various recoveries made from that portion of Ram Bhawan, in which
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji lived prior to his death, it cannot be
inferred said that Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
26. I have reached the said conclusion after inspecting the relevant
articles, which in my opinion had a bearing in determining the identity of
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji, which I was directed to find out in terms
of the notification of the U.P.Govemment dated 28.06.2016 by which this
Commission was constituted. The said articles were kept in that portion of
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad in which Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji lived
before his death, which took place on 16.09.1985.

[ 141 ]
 PART VI
CONCLUSION
1. For reasons mentioned in Part IV of this Report ( Pages 312 to 315)
the claim of witness/witnesses mentioned under heads:- 4, 5 and 6 of the
said Part cannot be taken into consideration by the Commission for
answering the point of reference i.e. determining the identity of Gumnami
Baba alias Bhagwanji, who lived in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad and whose dead
body was cremated on 18.09.1985.
2. The answer of the Commission to the claim of the
witnesses/witness mentioned under the remaining three heads i.e. head nos.
1,2 and 3 of Part IV of this Report ( pages 312 to 315) with regard to the
identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji is as follows:-
Head No.1:- Witnesses who claim that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was/may have been Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose.
Commission's Answer:- Claim not correct for reasons mentioned in Part III
and Part V of this Report.
Head No.2:- Witnesses who claim that Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji was not Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
Commission’s Answer:- Claim correct, for reasons mentioned in Part III and
Part V of this Report.
Head No.3:- Witness who claims that K.D.Upadhya was
Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji.
Commission's Answer:- Claim not corrcet, for reasons mentined in Part III
of this Report.

[ 142 ]
 Commission's Final Conclusion
3. For reasons mentioned in Part III and Part V of this Report, the
identity of Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji (who lived in Ram
Bhawan,Faizabad and whose dead body was cremated on 18.09.1985)
which the Commission was directed to determine, vide the notification of
the U.P.Government dated 28.06.2016, by which the Commission was
constituted, could not be determined.
Commission's inference about the personality of the person who
lived as Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji in Ram Bhawan,Faizabad
and whose dead body was cremated on 18.09.1985.
4. From a perusal of the statements of witnesses, who deposed before
the Commission or whose affidavits sworn before a Notary, for reasons
mentioned in them, were considered by the Commission as their statements
before it and inspection of articles, books etc. recovered from that portion of
Ram Bhawan,Faizabad in which Gumnami Baba alias Bhagwanji used to
live, the personality of the personwho lived as Gumnami Baba alias
Bhagwanji reflects the traits, enumerated hereinafter:-
(a) He was a Bengali;
(b) He was well-versed in Bengali,English and Hindi languages;
(c) He was an extraordinarily well-read person because a very
large number of books in Bengali, English and Hindi, on a large
number of subjects, were found in that portion of Ram Bhawan,
Faizabad in which he lived;
(d) He was very well-informed about war, politics and current
affairs;
(e) There was an air of authority in his voice/tone, similar to that
in the voice/tone of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose;
(f) He had tremendous will-power and self-control which enabled
him to live the last 10 years of his life in Ayodhya and Faizabad
behind a curtain;
(g) People with whom he used to talk from behind a curtain were
mesmerized after listening to him;

[ 143 ]
 (h) He spent a considerable time in pooja and meditation;
(i) He was fond of good things of life like music, cigar and food;
(j) He was an admirer of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose but
whenever rumour started spreading that he was Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose, he immediately changed his house; and
(k) He was disillusioned with the State of Governance in India.
In short, he was an extraordinary man, the like of whom one very
rarely comes across, who chose to die with his identity remaining a mystery.
But who can fault him for that, for he had the fundamental right to
life,guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to lead his life the
way he wanted and implicit in that right was his right to keep his identity a
mystery.
But, be that as it may, it was a matter of great shame that his
cremation was engineered in such a way that only 13 persons could
participate in it. What an irony, for who can deny that he deserved a much
bigger send-off from this earth.

[ 144 ]
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would be failing in my honesty if before parting with this Report, I
do not express my enormous debt to two people, without whose help this
Report would not have seen the light of the day. They are, Sri Dileep Kumar
(Retired District Judge,Chandauli) Secretary of the Commission and my
personal Secretary Sri R.P.Srivastava (Former Joint Principal Private
Secretary to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court).
Except writing the Report, Sri Dileep Kumar took care of all other
work relating to the Commission. He was not only of great help to me in
recording the evidence of witnesses, who deposed before the Commission
but the inputs which he periodically provided were of immense help to me
in compiling the Report.
Thank you very much Sri Dileep Kumar.
But for the monumental effort of Sri R.P.Srivastava, this Report,
which runs into nearly 350 pages, was not possible. Whatever I dictated to
him the previous day (which at times was 30 to 40 pages) he used to place
before me, flawlessly typed, the next morning. He also from time to time
made very useful suggestions in respect of preparation of Report.
Thank you very much Sri R.P.Srivastava.

Dated : 19-09-2017 (JUSTICE VISHNU SAHAI)

Chairman,
Gumnami Baba @ Bhagwanji Enquiry Commission.

ih0,l0;w0ih0&,0ih0 13 lk0 x`g iqfyl&11&11&2019&¼976½&500 izfr;ka&¼dEI;wVj@Vh0@vkQlsV½A

[ 145 ]
[146]