Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the sessions judge of Ferozepur has recently convicted a policeman and a lamberdar of so severely torturing a man to obtain a confession of a supposed burglary that the man either died from the injuries or committed suicide to escape further torture, and that the judge said that there was no evidence to connect the deceased man with the charge against him; and whether he can say how long it will be before such amendment is made in the law by making such confessions inadmissible as will remove from the police the motive for extorting them?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; I have received no official report of the judge's remarks, but am aware of the result of the trial. The torture took place in the house of a local landowner, who seems to have instigated the crime in pursuance of private enmity. The deceased person escaped and jumped into a well. I am advised that no charge of murder could be maintained on the facts; the accused were put on trial; the landowner was found guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt and wrongful confinement to extort confession, and was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of 500 rupees. One constable Was convicted, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of 20 rupees (the latter on a charge of extortion); a second constable, who has already appealed against the conviction, was found guilty of illegal confinement, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment; and one constable and the lambardar were acquitted. The proposal to make all confessions out of Court inadmissible as evidence is being considered by the Government of India, in consultation 183 with local Governments. But I would observe that this alteration in the rules of evidence, which now do not admit confession unless made before a magistrate, would not in any way prevent such occurrences as those with which these questions are concerned.
§ Mr. MORRELLasked whether his attention has been called to the report of the recent judgment in the Zira police torture case, in which a policeman and a lamberdar were convicted of torturing a British subject, named Chetu, for the purpose of extorting a confession of an alleged burglary; whether he is aware that the judge held that the victim must have been tortured in a cruel manner, and must have either died of the injuries he received or committed suicide to escape further ill-treatment, and that there was no evidence whatever to connect him with the burglary; whether the accused were put on their trial for murder; and whether the Government will now recommend that the law of India shall be so altered that no confessions made by prisoners shall be admissible in evidence unless made before the tribunal which is trying the case?
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTWith reference to the statement that circumstances would not justify a charge of murder, did the sessions judge, in pronouncing the verdict, state that if they did not actually murder the man, they tortured him in a most atrocious and cruel way, and to all intents and purposes did him to death, whether he died of the hurt inflicted on him or committed suicide to escape further ill-treatment.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI have already informed the hon. Member, I have no official report of the judge's remarks, but in any case the charge on which the prisoners were committed is framed by the magistrate on the evidence before him, and can be amended at any time if the judge thinks fit.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTMay I ask if the only compensation which the India Government is willing to offer to the dependents of this man, who was done to death by the agents of the India Government, are the amounts of £6 9s. to the aged mother, and £6 6s. to the wife, the young wife of twenty years old, and that this compensation is dependent and conditional upon that amount being realised in fines on the criminals?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not know to what the hon. Member refers. If he is referring to the fines mentioned in the reply, of course, compensation is quite apart from that. If the hon. Member wants to know anything about the question of compensation, if he will put down a question, I would rather answer in that way.
§ Mr. MORRELLCan the hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have a report as to the proposed change in the law suggested in his reply to the question?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe hon. Member is aware that I made an announcement that the Government of India was consulting the Local Government about the month of September. It will take five or six months I imagine before the results are known, and perhaps the hon. Member would put down a question early next spring?