§ 6. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked how many appeals have been taken in India against the acquittal of persons who have been tried for wilful murder since the law which made the plea of a previous acquittal on the same charge a bar to a new trial was altered under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code in 1872; how many of these appeals have been allowed; and in how many cases of acquittal in which appeals have been allowed have there been subsequently convictions for murder?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe Government of India have been asked for the information. It may take some little time to collect from the local Governments and the High Courts, and if it should necessitate a laborious examination of records, the hon. Member will, I trust, be content with figures for a briefer period than he has suggested.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIf he gives us the records of murder cases I shall be satisfied.
§ Mr. MONTAGUWe have telegraphed for it.
§ 7. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked what is the reason that, while the plea autrefois acquit is a bar to the trial of European British subjects in India for murder, natives of India who have been tried for murder and acquitted are liable to be tried afresh for murder on the same charge; and whether, having regard to the circumstances of the Sitapur (Oudh) trial for murder, conviction and execution of natives previously acquitted, it is contemplated to assimilate the precedure in the trials on capital charges of Europeans and natives in India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe reason lies in the provision of the Code that when an European British subject is accused of an offence punishable with death or with transportation for life, the commitment must be to the High Court and not to the Court of Sessions. In any case in which a European subject is tried for an offence and acquitted by a Court of Session, an appeal to the High Court may be preferred. It would not be possible to assimilate the procedure by making all capital offences in India triable by High Courts only. There exists substantial equality of justice, in that no convicted person can suffer death unless the sentence has either been passed by the High Court or has been confirmed by it.
§ 8. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he can explain the cause of the oversight by which the substance of the Report by the Government of India on the Sitapur (Oudh) murder trial case, which reached the India Office on the 5th April, was not communicated to Sir Henry Cotton till the 9th June, and then only in reply to a letter from Sir Henry Cotton on the 4th June asking whether the Report had been received; when were the contents of the Report of the Indian Government on the Sitapur murder case communicated to Sir John Hewitt, G.C.S.I., the late Lieutenant-Governor of Agra and of Oudh, in whose term of office the Sitapur murder trials, acquittals, and convictions took place; and whether Sir John Hewitt has made any, and, if so, what communication to the India Office in reference to this transaction?
§ Mr. MONTAGULord Crewe communicated to Sir Henry Cotton the substance of the Report he received from India on 201 the 5th April as soon as Sir Henry Cotton wrote in June to remind him of the matter. Lord Crewe regrets the delay, but I am sure the House will understand the circumstances in which such an incident can well occur in a busy Department. I discussed the matter personally with Sir John Hewitt on 25th June, and this was the first occasion on which Sir John learned that the case was being discussed. Sir J. Hewitt is anxious to make a statement to the Secretary of State as soon as the full official record is received from India.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs it possible that from 5th April, when this Report was received, until the 9th June, no action was taken in the India. Office; further, the hon. Gentleman was in India at the time, did Lord Crewe not communicate with him about it; there is a Legal Assistant to the Indian Government, was that document ever placed before Mr. Scales, the Legal Assistant in India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUNo action was taken between 5th April, when that Report was received from India, and 9th June, when Sir Henry Cotton's letter was received. No action at all. This occurrence, for which Lord Crewe has expressed regret, was due to an oversight; the papers were put by and no action was taken. As soon as Sir Henry Cotton reminded us of the delay, immediate action was taken.
§ Mr. MORRELLCan the hon. Gentleman say how it was that neither on 24th January, nor on 4th April, did the India Office apparently ask for any explanation of the facts; did they not think these facts required explanation?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe first step to be taken was to get confirmation of the facts from India. Obviously, as soon as the facts were received and attended to, further correspondence with India and with Sir Henry Cotton was necessary. That was done immediately Sir Henry Cotton's reminder was received. The delay from 4th April to 9th June is explicable on the basis that the papers were put to one side inadvertently and no action was taken.
§ 10. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action the India Office took on receipt from the Government of India, on the 4th April, 1912, of the Report on facts submitted to Lord Crewe by Sir Henry Cotton, on 24th January, with reference to the trials, acquittals, re-trails, convictions, and executions of the Singhs at Sitapur, whose 202 accuracy was admitted by that Report; when did the India Office communicate with the Government of India on the Sitapur executions after the receipt of the Report; and what was the date of that communication?
§ Mr. MONTAGUAs I have already said, the Report on the facts was not dealt with in any way until Sir Henry Cotton's reminder and the question and Debate in this House brought the matter to the notice of the Secretary of State. But the general question of the provisions of the rules governing the transmission of petitions in capital and in other cases from local governments to the Government of India has been under consideration for some months. As I stated in answer to a question last week, a telegram was sent asking for further information. A request for the papers was made; the Debate in this House was sent to India, and a dispatch on the general question of appeal rules went to India by last mail.
§ 11. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India why the Secretary of State for India did not accept the offer made to him by Sir Henry Cotton in his first letter in reference to the Sitapur executions to place the records of the trials and copies of the two judgments which are in his possession at the disposal of the Secretary of State; why was no notice taken of this offer; and whether the Secretary of State will now accept it in order to save the time which must elapse before the receipt of copies of these documents from India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe Secretary of State was not aware that these documents were in Sir Henry Cotton's possession. Sir Henry Cotton merely said that he had received a large packet of original Papers, with which he did not propose, unless asked, to trouble the Secretary of State. If Sir Henry Cotton should now be pleased to forward these Papers, the Secretary of State will be glad to receive them, but it may be found necessary to await the complete record which has been called for from India.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI beg to give notice that I shall direct attention to this matter when the Indian Budget comes on.
§ Mr. MORRELLCan the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks these Papers will arrive in time for us to have the explanation when the Indian Budget comes on?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThey were telegraphed for as soon as this matter arose. I cannot promise them by any date, but, I think, they will arrive without any delay.