§ 8. Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now give any further information with regard to the Sitapur murder case, and especially as to the trial and acquittal of a man named Machan Singh, on the charge upon which two men who had been acquitted by the Sessions Judge were afterwards hanged, and a third man named Ganga Singh is still in penal servitude; whether he can say why no mention was made of the prosecution of Bachan Singh in the Papers laid before this House; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of this ease and the suspicion that exists in the minds of many unprejudiced persons that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice, the Secretary of State will now advise the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy in favour of Ganga Singh?
§ Mr. MONTAGUBachan Singh absconded after the murder, and was not arrested until the 20th October, 1912, about six weeks after the execution of the other two men. He was tried by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, on the 10th February, found guilty, and condemned to transportation for life. He appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. The appeal was decided on the 13th May in favour of the appellant. At the time when Papers were presented this case had not been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State. Full information was received on the 25th August. After careful consideration the Secretary of State is convinced that the circumstances of this 744 case in no way affect the justice of the decision in the previous case; and he has already, in reply to a petition on behalf of Ganga Singh, refused to advise the exercise of the Royal prerogative.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the hon. Gentleman aware that this man was tried and executed on the same evidence as the three other prisoners, two of whom were executed; and as to the one who is now in penal servitude, is he likewise aware that one of the judges, the Judicial Commissioners, who acquitted this man, constituted the bench that convicted the other three?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a question later upon the evidence. It is not the case that he was either convicted or acquitted on the same evidence. In regard to the question as to the judges, the Secretary of State took all the circumstances into consideration.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs it not the case that Ganga Singh, who is now in penal servitude, is serving that under a sentence which was never passed upon him by the judge who tried him, because he was acquitted by the judge who tried the case and was sentenced by a man who had never seen him?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI believe he was sentenced on appeal.
§ Mr. MORRELLDid not my hon. Friend himself say that the appeal was in no sense a retrial, but was merely an appeal against a previous acquittal?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI think my hon. Friend remembers the elaborate discussion we had on a former occasion.
§ 13. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now aware that for the same offence for which Chalkan Singh, Sikhdan Singh, and Ganga Singh were tried by Mr. Bell, the Sessions Judge at Sitapur, and acquitted, and were, five months after their acquittal, retried by judicial Commissioners on the report of the evidence of witnesses in the Court below who were not examined or seen by the Commissioners, Chalkan Singh and Sikhdan Singh being sentenced to death and executed, and Ganga Singh being sentenced to penal servitude, a fourth man named Bachan Singh was tried by another Sessions Judge on exactly the same evidence as was offered in the case of the 745 Singhs, convicted by him and sentenced not to death but to imprisonment, and that that very appeal resulted in an acquittal; has he ascertained the cause of his having had no information from India as to the trial of Bachan Singh so lately as the 13th August last; has he yet inquired what was the reason of this circumstance, which tends to throw additional doubts on the guilt of the Singhs and to show that the Government of India would have favourably entertained their petition for mercy if that petition had not been withheld by Sir John Hewett, not having been communicated to the India Office in the history of this transaction sent from the authorities in India and communicated by the India Office to this House; and whether the Secretary of State will now advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in the case of Ganga Singh?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley. But I must point out that the evidence upon which Bachan Singh was acquitted was not exactly the same as that upon which the other three men were convicted. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that up to the time when papers were presented, this House was concerned with the Sitapur ease, so far as it concerned the trial of the three men acquitted by the Sessions judge and convicted by the Judicial Commissioner on appeal, and thereby raised the general question of appeals against acquittals and the disposal of petitions of persons under sentence of death. The records of the subsequent trial of Bachan Singh were not among the papers called for by the Secretary of State, who was then unaware of the proceedings against him, and were evidently not judged relevant to the specific issue raised. But when the appeal of Ganga Singh, under sentence of transportation, came before the local government, the possible hearing of Bachan Singh's acquittal was not overlooked by them, and the record was then transmitted to the Secretary of State, and was considered by him when he disposed of the appeal, and refused to advise the exercise of the Royal prerogative.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLWhen did the Secretary of State first hear of this case? Bachan Singh was convicted on 12th October, 1912, and the other case did not come up until June of last year.
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), a copy of which I will give him, he will see all the dates he asks for are set out.
§ Mr. MORRELLCan the hon. Member tell me if the appeal of Ganga Singh ever came before the Viceroy-in-Council?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI think it was forwarded through him to the Secretary of State, but if the hon. Gentleman will give notice I will give him accurate information.