§ 8. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the fact that, in connection with an agrarian dispute, three zemindars of Oudh, Chutkan Singh, Sikhdar Singh, and Ganga Singh, were tried for murder before Mr. H. J. Bell, the Sessions judge of Sitapur on 22nd February, 1912, and acquitted, the learned judge, as Civil servant of twenty-one years' standing, saying that he found it impossible to convict because he did not believe the evidence; that the men thus acquitted were set at liberty, but more than five months after their release an appeal was taken to the Judicial Commission of Oudh, at the instance of the Lieutenant-Governor, against the acquittal order of the Sessions judge of Sitapur; that the appeal was admitted, and the accused men were rearrested; that at the new trial no new witnesses were examined, no additional evidence taken, and no oral evidence was submitted, and the decision on 15th August, 1912, was to reverse the acquittal, to convict the accused, and to direct two of the prisoners to be hanged and the third to be transported for life; that the convicted men appealed to the Lieutenant-Governor, who was the authority who had appealed against their acquittal, for a revision or commutation of their sentence, but that he declined to interfere and refused to transmit an appeal on their behalf, forwarded to him for transmission to the Government of India, and that the sentence of death was carried out on the 9th September, 1912; whether the Secretary of State has received a report on the case from India in which these facts are admitted; and what steps, if any, does he intend to take with reference to this transaction, with a view to allay the discontent caused by this method of administering the law and the conduct of the Lieutenant-Governor?
§ 9. Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the facts of an agrarian murder case in which three landholders, Chutkan Singh, Sikhdar Singh, and Ganga. Singh, were tried for murder before the Sessions judge of Sitapur, in Oudh, and were acquitted on the 22nd February, 1912, and set at liberty; whether the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces appealed against the acquittal on the 10th July, 1912, before the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh; 952 whether the appeal was admitted and the accused men were rearrested after having been five months at large; whether a court, consisting of two additional commissioners, without taking any further evidence or hearing any witnesses, but after a perusal of the record of the Sessions judge, convicted the accused on the 15th August and sentenced Chutkan Singh and Sikhdar Singh to be hanged and Ganga Singh to transportation for life; whether the convicted persons appealed to the Lieutenant-Governor on the 27th August for a revision or commutation of sentence, and the Lieutenant-Governor on the 31st August declined to interfere; whether, in the meantime, the date of execution was fixed for the 9th September; whether repeated telegrams were addressed to the Lieutenant-Governor and the Government of India, at Simla, praying that the date of execution might be postponed in order to allow time for a further appeal for mercy to be addressed to the Government of India; whether an appeal was forwarded by counsel to the Lieutenant-Governor on the 5th September for transmission to the Government of India; whether the Lieutenant-Governor refused to transmit this appeal, and on the 7th September informed counsel by letter that he had done so under the rule which requires that such petitions must reach the Government of India in time to allow forty-eight hours for consideration; whether Chutkan Singh and Sikhdar Singh were banged on the 9th September; and whether all these allegations are actual facts within the official cognisance of the Secretary of State; and, if so, what action has the Secretary of State taken in the matter?
10. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether three Thakur zemindars of Oudh were tried for murder before the Sessions judge of Sitapur on 22nd February, 1912, and acquitted; whether six months later, on the appeal of the local government, without retrial or re-examination, these three men were found guilty by two Judicial Commissioners appointed to hear the appeal, and two of them were sentenced to death; whether, after the Lieutenant-Governor had refused a petition for a revision or commutation of the sentence, the prisoners, through their counsel, prayed for a postponement of the date of execution in order that they might appeal to the Government of India; whether an appeal was sent to the local government on 6th September to be forwarded to the 953 Government of India; whether the local government withheld this appeal from the Government of India on the technical ground that such petitions should reach the Government in time to allow forty-eight hours' consideration; whether the two prisoners were executed on 9th September; and whether the Government of India propose to make any modification in the rules regarding the transmission of memorials in capital sentence cases which will prevent the recurrence of such an incident?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe Secretary of State has given this case his anxious consideration. The facts are substantially as stated. A brutal murder had been committed, and three persons were tried for murder by the Sessions judge. The judge, concurring with a majority of the assessors, acquitted the accused. On the motion of the district magistrate, who considered that there had been a failure of justice, the local government sanctioned an appeal from the acquittal to the Judicial Commissioners, who form the High Court of the Criminal Procedure Code for Oudh. The Judicial Commissioners, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the accused, reversed the order of acquittal, found the three accused guilty and sentenced two to death. The Lieutenant-Governor, on being memorialised by the accused, refused to interfere. The Judicial Commissioners and the local government must be assumed to have acted with a due sense of their responsibilities, and the procedure followed is not open to exception on the ground of irregularity. A local government may withhold a petition for mercy from persons under sentence of death if the petition cannot reach the Government of India in time to allow them forty-eight hours for consideration of the cases before the date fixed for execution and if no exceptional facts are disclosed. The local government in the case under reference acted under this rule. The Secretary of State doubts whether in the circumstances this discretion was wisely exercised, and he is consulting the Government of India as to whether some amendment of the rule may not be required. I will place in the Library a copy of the rule under which the local government acted.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this case on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
§ Sir W. BYLESMay I ask whether we are to understand that these men were hanged after having been acquitted by a responsible judge and then convicted without evidence; whether, if that be so, it does not amount to official murder; and whether the responsible persons concerned will not be rebuked?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is really only asking all over again the question which has been answered.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs it admitted that these men were acquitted, that they were five months at large, and that then they were rearrested and tried again?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not know if the hon. Member is quite familiar with the Criminal Procedure Code of India.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLYes, I am.
§ Mr. MONTAGUThen I would recommend him to study those provisions which allow an appeal from an acquittal by a lower Court to a higher Court. Everything done in this case was strictly legal and in conformity with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI do not like to press the hon. Gentleman, and I know that a limit of six months is allowed for an appeal, but is it not usual in the case of murder, where an appeal is heard at all, for it to be heard immediately, and not after a long interval of time
§ Mr. MONTAGUI can only repeat the words in the answer I have given. The Secretary of State doubts whether the discretion of the local government was wisely exercised having regard to all the circumstances, and, when I used the words "all the circumstances," I was referring to circumstances like that the hon. Member mentions.