§ MR. CAINE (Bradford, E.)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the decision of Justices Prinsep and Amir Ali on the Balladhum murder case in the Criminal Appellate Court of Calcutta on 11th December; and if he is aware that on the 7th of August last four Manipuri were sentenced to death and three others to penal servitude for life for the murder of one Cockburn, his paramour, and his servant at Balladhum, in Assam, upon the sole evidence of two approvers who were arrested at the same time; that the case was referred to the High Court by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of the sentence of death, and that an appeal was also lodged before the same Court by the prisoners; and in giving judgment the High Court Judges stated that the difficulties of the case had been increased by serious irregularities in the proceedings at every stage, before the police, before two Magistrates, who at various times interposed during the police investigation, before the committing Magistrate, and at the trial in the Sessions Court; that the Sessions Judge refused to admit as evidence the dying deposition of the murdered woman, who swore that the men who committed the murder were not Manipuris at all, but Mussulmans and a Cabuli, and that it 1314 was the distinct duty of the prosecutor to submit, and of the Sessions Judge to admit, so important a piece of evidence; that the Sessions Magistrate refused to allow prisoners' counsel to cross-examine, the High Court Judges declaring that such a practice has never come under the notice of either of them, and the unfairness of such a course is so obvious that they could not understand how it could be adopted or defended; that the evidence of the approvers, on which the convictions entirely depend, has been obtained under circumstances of much irregularity, tending to throw great suspicion on it; that it was clear that the approvers had been tutored, and had been obtained under pressure by the police; that the statements had been got from them in consequence of inducements and promises without the terms of Section 24 of the Evidence Act; that these prisoners were detained in police custody for very long terms under authority of various orders of the District Magistrate improperly given; that the District Magistrate refused to allow the prisoners when brought before him to communicate with their pleader, which wits most arbitrary and improper; and that, in consequence of such numerous and serious irregularities in the course of the proceeding before and during the trial, all of which must have seriously prejudiced the prisoners, all the prisoners were acquitted; and, if so, will the Secretary of State take some prompt action with regard to the Magistrates and police officers involved in this trial who have been censured by the High Court Judges pending a searching public inquiry into their conduct?
§ * THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,) North Beds.The Secretary of State will inquire from the Government of India as to the circumstances of this case, and ask whether they consider it necessary that any special examination should take place of the conduct of the officers referred to in my hon. Friend's question.
§ MR. CAINEHas the India Office received a full statement of the decision of the High Court of Calcutta on this matter?
§ MR. GEORGE RUSSELLNo; we have at present only the newspaper 1315 accounts, but further Reports have been sent for.
§ MR. GEORGE RUSSELLThe Government of India will be asked to send a full account.