§ 6. Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether at the trial of Bachan Singh, the record of which has now been laid before the House, the witness Kedar, upon whose information the police charged Sangha Singh, Bachan Singh, and two others with murder, has now been completely discredited by the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh; whether the Session judge of Sitapur also disbelieved the witness's story and acquitted the accused; whether it was largely upon the faith of this man's testimony that Sangha Singh was sentenced to and is undergoing transportation for life by Judicial Commissioners who did not see or examine Kedar; and whether, under the circumstances, it is now intended to carry out the sentence?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThe Judicial Commissioner doubted the credibility of Kedar Singh's evidence only in so far as it related to Bachan Singh. In the trial before the Sessions Judge of Sitapur the judge found discrepancies between the evidence given by Kedar Singh and that of other witnesses, and concurring with two of the three assessors acquitted the accused. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, but I must point out that the accused was represented before the Appellate Court by the counsel who had defended him with the two other accused in the Sessions Court, and that no application was made on their behalf for the hearing of evidence at the appeal. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on the 17th February.
§ Sir W. BYLESHas the India Office satisfied itself that this man is justly condemned, and is not suffering imprisonment for a crime which he did not commit?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSYes, the India Office has most carefully considered the matter.
§ Mr. MORRELLHas the India Office taken into consideration the fact that this man is suffering imprisonment after a hearing at which no evidence was heard or taken?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSAll the circumstances of the trial have been most carefully considered.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the hon. Gentleman aware that counsel on the trial did not adduce any evidence or ask witnesses to be present, because they were confident of an acquittal?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSNo, Sir, I am not aware.
§ 9. Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the observations of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, who acquitted Bachan Singh, about the allegations made to the police as to the connection of one Mathura with the murder for which Bachan was tried, and as to the motive attributed to Mathura, and as to the duty of the police to have inquired into these allegations; whether they have been at any time inquired into; and, if so, with what result?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThe Secretary of State has no information as to whether the allegations mentioned by the hon. Member have or have not been inquired into by the police. The Assistant Judicial Commissioner attached no value to them as made to him.
§ Sir W. BYLESIs it not becoming perfectly obvious that this great Dependency cannot be governed from Whitehall?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSWhat is becoming obvious is that it is hopeless to retry an Indian murder case by question and answer in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs it possible for my hon. Friend to ascertain whether or not it true that this man has been on two or three occasions accused of murder?
§ Sir W. BYLESHas the India Office satisfied itself that this man is justly condemned, and is not suffering imprisonment for a crime which he did not commit?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSI do not know that I can inquire into that now. The point was not dealt with at the trial at all.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs it not possible to find out from the police?
§ 11. Mr. MORRELLasked whether the man Kedar, who was held by the Judicial Commissioner at Oudh, in the trial of Bachan Singh, to be a witness unworthy of belief, was the man upon whose information the charge of murder was brought against the three men originally tried by the Sitapur Sessions judge in this case; whether the evidence of this man Kedar was disbelieved by that judge and the two assessors, with the result that the prisoners were acquitted; and whether this acquittal was set aside on appeal by the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh without hearing any evidence at all?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThe report of the murder was conveyed to the police station by Kedar Singh. With regard to the last two parts of the question I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member.
§ 12. Mr. MORRELLasked whether the trial of Bachan Singh in the Sitapur murder case, which resulted in his conviction, was conducted in the absence of the principal witness, Kedar, who had absconded; whether the two assessors who sat with the Sessions judge disagreed with him and were in favour of an acquittal; whether, in the appeal which was heard by the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, he insisted upon the absent witness, Kedar, being brought before him; and whether he then came to the conclusion that this witness was wholly unworthy of belief?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThe answers to the first, second, and third parts are in the affirmative. With regard to the last part the Assistant Judicial Commissioner doubted the evidence of Kedar so far as it implicated Bachan Singh in the murder.
§ 14. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the trial of Bachan Singh, who was the fourth prisoner charged in the Sitapur murder case, was removed from the jurisdiction of the Sitapur Sessions judge, by whom the. other three prisoners had been acquitted, and transferred to another province; and, if so, by whose orders and for what reason this was done?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSIf my hon. and learned Friend will look at page 9 of the Paper recently placed in the Library he will find the order of transfer. Lucknow is in the same province as Sitapur. The reasons for which such a transfer may be made are stated in Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
§ Mr. MORRELLCan my hon. Friend say what were the actual reasons in this ease for the transfer?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSNo; it is not necessary to state them.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLWas not the reason in this case that the Sessions judge had acquitted the three other prisoners on the same charge?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSNo. My hon. and learned Friend is confusing two trials.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLNo.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSYes. He is confusing the trial of Bachan Singh with that of the three previous prisoners.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLWhy was not Bachan Singh tried for the same offence by the same tribunal as that by which the other prisoners were tried?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSI am afraid that I cannot answer that. The order can be referred to, as I have suggested.
§ Mr. MORRELLWill my hon. Friend make inquiry into this important fact?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSI will make inquiry; but it is not necessary to state the reasons at the time, and the reasons were not stated at the time.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLWas the Judicial Commissioner who acquitted Bachan Singh the Judicial Commissioner who convicted the other three prisoners; and was Bachan Singh acquitted because Kedar was there to give evidence, while in the other case he was not?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThat is not the case. My hon. and learned Friend is right in the fact that it was the same Judicial Commissioner, but it was not on the same evidence. He altered his opinion on a point of evidence which concerned the one man, but did not concern the other three.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLDid he not alter his opinion because he saw the witness in the one case, whereas in the other case he never saw him at all?