''K"f:i'.U ®;w£* J ••■y.;/\.i40/\/-i: - ' mmmmijfM &.^ '7 V* i: .-.• ■■,h',.- THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE TRIAL^ OF I MULUK CHAND FOR THE MURDER OF HIS OWN CHllD. ^^ A ROMANCE OF CRIMINAL ADMLMSTRATION IN BENGAL WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY W. A. IIUNTHR, LL.D., M.P. ^ T. FISHER UN WIN, ' 26 Paternoster Square. 1888. ^^ PC-, ^.s-^ THK ABEl N V M \ JOHN THOMSON AND JOHN F. HiOMSON, M.A, :i£S!: K INTRODUCTION.- This report of the strange case of Muluk Chand, a humble watchman in a small village of rural Bengal, is published from the original record, with a narrative from the pen of Mr. Manomohan Ghose, who acted a.y Cfunsel to the accused on , c' the second trial. Besides the interest that always attaches ^^__ to the great dr amas of life when played out on the stage of the criminal courts, there are instructive points in the cass -•'^^ as illustrating some of the characteristic features in the administration of English and Indian criminal law. Muluk Chand was convicted unanimously by a jury for the u'l"' murder of his daughter, aged 9 years. The principal witness against him was a younger daughter, aged 7 years, who stated that she had seen the murder committed. The Ses- sions Judge, Mr. P. D. Dickens, a "competition ivaUah'' was a."? fully convinced of the guilt of the accused as of the truth '^)f the proposition tha!5 " two and two make four'". But the capital .sentence cannot in India be executed when a Sessions Judge pronounces condemnation until it i.v confirmed b}- the yigh Court. Some of the persons who heard the trial were nbt cerfvinccd of the justice of the verdict, and a subscription 'Was raised for the purpose of engaging counsel when the case came before the High Court. After a lengthened debate^ Mr. M. Ghose rorijvinced two judges that there was sufficient doubt to justify thcAa in ordering ^ new trial. Upon the .second trial the accu.sed y^as acquitted, as it appeared alrjost certain that no murder had in fact been perpetrated. The mode in which the dccca.sed met her death was not di.sclosed to counsel until •after the verdict w^s given on the second trial. IV An English lawyer cannot help being impressed with the ' superiority, in one respect, of criminal procedure in India. Had the cast occurred in England, the only appeal would have been to the Home Secretary, and he would have been compelled to arrive at truth without the aids that a public trial affords. The High Court in Calcutta is a more suitable < tribunal to consjder appeals ; and the mannet in which this Court discharges its duties has caused it to be regarded with vencrktion by the people of India as the noblest manifestation of British justice. The light that this c\ s^ throws upon the administration of justice in the rural districts of Bengal is somewhat painful. The miscarriage of justice was due to the corruption of the \jolice and their determination to support a wrong opinion by tutoring a child in falsehoods to swear away its father's life. At the same time the readiness of the people to perjure them- selves is a fact full of significance as to the difficulty of carrying out a pure administration of the law. A candid study of the facts in this case will inspire grave doubts of the expediency of certain changes in English ' criminal procedure that have been adopted in India. In England the evidence of the three women who stated that the little girl told them what she haJ seen on the morning' of the murder would not have been admissible. Mr. Dickens admitted it under 'the provisions of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is to the effect that any statement mac^e^ by a witness, at or gbout the time when the fact to w^ich'it relates took place, is admissible in order to corroborate the. witness. Such a rule gives enormous scope to perjury,) and enables a prosecution to multijoly witnesses., It gives a fajse appearance of corroboration, and in this case undoubtedly itvi to a, fearful miscarriage of justice. Evidently the experiment of altering the rules of evidence has in this instance proved a failure. ." It is a singular fact that the whole case 'for the prosecution • against Muluk Chand would have collapsed if the Sessions Judge had exercised a power that he possessed of calling for the production of the police papers. The practice in India is to enter in a diary at the police office, noting the day and hour, every fact and statement made concerning a police inquiry.* So much iijiportance does the Indian law attach to $uch statements, that any person wilfully making a'false state- ment to the police is exposed to the punishment of perjury, just as if he had made the statement as a witness at the trial.-i* The accused parties have no right to inspect the police records — it is difficult to see why — but the Jila^V may call for them and examine them himself Had Mr. D^cicens done so, he would have found an entry showing that the police had dug up the floor of Muluk Chand's house, searching for the snake wkich was supposed to have killed the girl. A perusal of the trial shows that this fact is totally inconsistent with the theory of the prosecution.; and if Mr, Dickens had laid his finger on it, the whole edifice of perjury would have fallen to the ground. , * Section 172 of the Indian Criminal Prdtedure (Act X. of 1882) enacts : — " Every police-officer making an investigation under this chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of » the circumstances ascertained through his investigation, " Any Criminal Court \\ay send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial. Neither the* accused nor his agents sljall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to sec them, merely because they are referred to by the Court ; but if they are used by the police-officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of cqijtradicting such police-officer, the provisions of the • Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section i6t or Section 145, as the case may be.Tshall apply." t Hy Secti«yi 161 of the Indian Criminal ProcccVire Code every person is •' bound to answer truly all questiohs relating to the case put to him by the investigating police-officer other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency tooJoie him to a criminal charge or to a penahVor forfeiture," and /inder the Indian Penal Code, any person who, being under a legal obligation to tell the trutlv makes any statement which he knows to be false or does not beUeve to be true, commits the offence of perjury. VI At the second trial both the native doctor who made the post-mortem examination of the deceased girl and his Euro- pean superior were present and were cross-examined. It was elicited on this cross-examination that the wound, from which the girl was supposed to have died, was more probably inflicted after death. But the singular thing is that the attendance of these medical men was not compulsory.* In- deed, medical witnesses do not usually appear at the trial when they have been examined before the committing magistrate. Considering that, at the first stage, prisoners are usually without legal advice and^^nd^ cross-examination can take place, this practice is full of dahger. It may be that there are great demands upon the time of medical officers in India, but nothing can justify the practice of receiving evidence which has not been tested by cross-examination, and upon which at the trial no cross-examination can take place. The Judge has a discretionary power to compel the attendance of medical witnesses at the trial, but this is hardly a matter that ought to be left to the discretion of the Judge. A prisoner has a right that no testimony should be admitted at the trial unless his counsel has an opportunity of testing its value. Except in providing a proper Court of Criminal Appeal, it would appear that the innovations in criminal procedure that have been introduced in India, so far as this case throws light upon them, are ncft calculated to further the ends of justice. W. A. HUNTgR.'' ■^ Section 509 of the Indian Criminal Procedure enacts : — " The deposition of a civil surgeon or other medical witness, taken and attested by a magistratejn the presence of the accused, may-^e given in evi- dence in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under this code, although the deponent is not called as a witness. . " The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examin^ ^'ch deponent as to the subject-matter of his deposition." TRIAL • OF MULUK CHAND'GHAUKIDAR. CHAPTER I. RECORD OF THE FIRST TRIAL. NUDDEA SESSIONS COURT.— May i 6, 1882. (Before P. D. Dickens, Esq., Judge.) ' The Empress v. Muluk Chand Chaukidar. This case was committed by the Deputy-Magistrate of Bongong, in the district of Nuddea in Bengal, and tried by* the Sessions Court. '?hc prisoner was charged witli having, on the niglit of the 27th Marcli* 1882, murdered his own daughter, Nekjan, aged 9 years, with a view to bring a fals% charge of murder against one Kadam Ali Fakir. The Jury having found the i)risoner guilty, the Judge, who concurrr^d in the verdict, setTtenced tSc prisoner to dcnlh, subject to Confirmation by the High Court. Tlic evidence recorded by^hc Judge at the trial* consisted of the following •depositions : * The deposition of Golak Mani, aged about 7 years : — [The child was first questioned by the Foreman of the Jury, and gave intelHgent answers, and said that to tell a falsehood was a sin. She was then affirmed in the usual way.] I remember my sister — my elder sister. Her name was Nekjan. She is dead. She dieel on our verandah. It was night. My father killed her. This is m^' father. [Points out prisoner.] '" I myself saw him do it. He first put his foot* on her throat, and afterwards struck her' (tnariachilo) on the body [points to a spot just below the abdomen] with a spear. My sister did not cry out. I was awake. Something touched my body and woke me. I was in the verandah. I said — "■ Baba, maritecho ka7io V A^^Ti'Coi^x, why are you kiUing ? ") He said nothing. I was afraid-^ It was then not dark {pJiarsha). After this my father told me that I was not to tell the daroga (police inspector) if he came, and that I was not to tell my mother when she came back. She had gone the evening before 'to Goga. My sister Nekjan gave me my meal that night. Next morning Dhiru gave me my meal. I told Dhiru in the morning, and my mother and Haru. Haru came first to the house very early in the morning, and I told her first, and then Dhiru came and I told her, and told my mother when she came. After my father struck my sister I did not go to sleep. My father after that cried, and I cried. After killing my sister my father went out, and returned some time afterwards. I stayed where I was. I did not think of going out and tellings my aunt then. This is the spear — our spear. My father had been sleeping on the same mat (bichana) my sister and I'were sleeping on, before my sister was Jcilled. When I spoke to Haru^first I was in the compound. I was sent to the field by my father on the next day. I did not see the daroga send away the body. I did not. see th'2 body taken away. I was sent to the field early in the morning after my meal. » ^Iy father had treated me more kindly than he treated my sister ; but he used not to treat her unkjndly. I knew my sister was dead, becaase she did not answer me, and when I tried to rouse her by j)ulling her body, she'did not move. To Jury. — My father began to cry when he cafn^ back m the morning. To Prisoner. — No one hai tutored me. I have spokefi the trufh. 5 \^Note by the Judge. — This little child gave her evidence intelli- gently, and in a way which impressed me with a belief that she had witnessed the scene she described, and was wot repeating a story learned by rote.] (Sd!) P. Dickens. Witness No. 2., Deposition of Adhar Chandra Chakravarti, aged al^out 35 years, taken on solemn afifirmation under the provisions of Act X. of 1873, before me, P. Dickens, Esq., Sessions Judge of Nuddea, the 1 6th day of May, 1882 : — ; |«^ My name is Adhar Chandra Chakravarti. My father's name is Ramkumar Chakravarti. I am by caste Brahmin. I reside at present in Mouza Bongong, where I am Civil Hospital Assistant, in charge of Bongong Sub-Division. I examined the body of a girl identified to me as the body of Nckjan by Dwarika, constable, on the evening of the 29th March, Wednesday, about 4 p.m. Decomposition was setting in on the scalp, but not on the body. . I made a posi-mortem examination, and have drawn out a report. This is the report [marked Ex. A. put in and read]. When I say the mouth was closed and the tongue protruded, I tncan that the teeth had closed on the tongue, which was protruding. The protrusion of tl%e tongue and the congestion of the eyes are • signs of strangulation. I did not suspect strangulation, and therefore made no cxamina- lion under the skin to see if there were marks of pressure under the skin -if 'the throat. , The wound on the loin was sufficient to cause death. The wound was a gaping wound, V.^ (d E >> as Id en < (d a) ■4-1 (d Z o. E 4 Q > <: s E < J in A u "O IL, Z" • O •< en s^ s" c o o >, ■J (d 4-1 ^•* • •-^ en H Z < H en en "rt s 1) "rt K Id > u o a w u >^ K c^ « z K Q J= Z «^ •< "rt - lU en Q . Z en « 1 en i 03 X JJ •a (5 ■£ >; H X ;< 4-> OS (d Q CO < u > £ D Z K o > & Q < < > JC ♦J o K pa OJ ¥*■ « s s • c c • 9 • o o ■ o uao g 4.1 Id z o z Id Id 1 '^ 1 -> o "rt *^ (/) ^ 4.* cn •a 2i l- c2 JS 4) tuo be 0. CD •- (A U Id !d a. Tn C^ en bo •a Q u 1 ( , •«^- t^ < c c o z o 1) ^ 3 • ^w P ft- i- ui > U ?: ca en* O "•a >'2 •< s Id J5 !< "^ < Z (J O .J en o > uj c 4> x: > n s hJ MM Z J .. o "- <-> ^ O 3 c • * C^ Q • « ^ 1 en « Id en y. tc ■ ■■51 1 ? . 1 <5 X ^' ,• t z 1/) Id >» < w X s 1 J= c 5/ 1 ? " 1 X o 1 Z Q 1 < • -» • 8 Mouth shut up, tongue swollen, enlarged and protruded ; eyes congested ; frothy blood came out from the nostrils ; one scratch mark on the left chdsk, 2 inches long, | inch broad; and one punc- tured wound on the epigastric region measuring about one inch long, |- inch broad and abeut i inch deep. This has penetrated into the convex surface of the left lobe of the liver about J inch deep. About 3 out>ces of liquid blood was found on the ab,dominal cavity. I am of opinion tkat the deceased met with her death by the penetrating wound of the abdomen. (Sd.)' A. C. Chakravarti, Civil Hospital Assistant, Bongong. The wound in the abdomen was probably the cause of death. (Sd.) J. Brander, * Civil Surgeon, Witness No. 3. Deposition of Ramdas Sirkar, aged about 30 years, taken on solemn affirmation : — My father's name is Joychand Sirkar. I am by caste Kayast. My house is at Mouzah Sa'-sa, where I am a head-constable of police. I am in charge of Sarsa Thanna (police station). I was in charge on the 27th of March last. I received information of this murder on the 28th March (Tuesday) at about 3I p.m. The information was given by the acqiised.* He brought no written information. To Court. — It is customary to bring a written information in cases of murder. • I took down his sVitement in writing correctly. This is#not Tt. [Note by the Judge. — The first izahar (information) is not with the recopd, and I cannot admit secondary evidence of its contents.] The prisoner after making his izahar (statement) went home. I followed, and arrived at the villdge at i\ a.m. on the morning of the 29th March. I saw the body of a child. It was lying in the verandah of the house of Muluk Chand, the prisoner. The .body wac then * The information given by the accused was to the effect that on his return * home that morning from his field, at about 4 A.M., he found his chil(f dead in bfd, and that he did not know the cause of death. • lying on its back. The legs were not doubled or drawn up, but stretched out. The arms were straight and by the side o( the corpse. It was lying on a mat. I saw no blood-stain at all on the mat. The verandah showed no signs of having been freshly leped (wiped) or cleaned. I saw a wound — the Sdges were not closed but open.. No blood was coming out. The accused was there. » The pwichayet (village headman) was there, and the prisoner's wife was there. I did not see Golak Chokri (girl) there.' The prisoner said he could not tell how she had come by her death. The prisoner's wife did not then ihajje any statement to me. I made this map. It is correct as a rough nlap, though not drawn to scale. I did not see Golak Mani all that day (the 29th). The next day I was at the thanna (police station). I made no attempt at investigation on that day, the 29th. I took down only the sLitement of the prisoner in writing. I did not take down the statement of the wife in writing. She told me nothing about the murder. I made the map on the 31st March, when I returned with the inspector who investigated the case. To Jury. — The thanna (station) is nine miles from the village. • I forwarded the body on the 29th March in Dwarik's charge. I did not see the spear or this ba^i (sword) the first day I went there. I cn(iuircd for no weapons that day. I can't say why I went away fsom the village without making further report in the case. I made a written report that day. This is it. [Ex. C] Having made this intjucst report, I returned without making any enquiry into the crime. I first began to investigate that on the 31st, when I went on with the inspector. r (Sd.) P. Dickens. •Witness No. 4. ' » The deposition of Barahti, aged about 25 years, taken on solemn affirmation :— ' My father's name is Khodahux, Mussulman. My house is at Mouzflh I'hu'al* where I was living with my husba.sd. The accused is my husband. I had a daughter named Nekjan. She is dcwd. She was about 8 or so.. She was older than Golak. I !iad a little son aged 2\. The night that Nekjan died I was not lO < in my house. I had gone to Goga. My husband had sent me to Goga the evening before. He first told me to go about midday, and I started in the evening about a danda (24 minutes) before sunset. I was told to fetch money from his brother, Gopal, to meet the expenses of a cA'se brought against him by Fakir. I got no money. I returned next day about four danda or so in the morning, the time the cows are taken to the field. *I heard r-ries. My child Golak was crying, and my husband was also crying. I saw the body of Nekjan lying in the verandah. I saw a hole in the body just above the abdomen. The wound was not bleeding. It looked dry. I questioned the accused, saying — "How has this happened?" He said — " I went to look after my onions, and don't know how she was killed ". I said — " I have no quarrel with anyone ; who has done this ? No one has done it but you." I did say — " Is this why you sent me to Goga ? " He said — " Think about the means of escape ". I then asked the little girl, and she told me in answer to my ques- tions that her father had put his foot on the child's neck, and {maria- phelya) after she was killed thrust the spear into her. I believed the girl's statement, and I said to him — " I won't give you rice any more with my own hand," to which he made the answer — " Toviar hatai hhat amar ar khaetai hoeba na ".* After that I cooked no food for him. I did not notice the spear then. I see' this spear. [Produced.] It is my husband's. He has one spear only. This weapon {bagi) is also his. They were usually kept in the thatch of the verandah. The daroga (police officer) came next day. I did not see the daroga. He asked me r^9 question. He came to the house, but I was in a different verandah from the verandah the corpse was in, and I was not brought before the daroga. He did not ask me any question that day. I was first questioned two d^^vs afterwards by the other daroga (inspector), and I told him ^what' I have told the Court. I can't say why I did not tell the ddroga the first day and denounce my husband. It was not from fear. I had my children, and I had not seen th,e act mysslf, and I was not asked. I had taken the two youngest children with me to Goga, because the youngest wa§ at the brea^st, and the elder cried, ^and I could not leave her alone. I There was a case pending against my husband. ^ Fakir had' * " I shall not have to eat rice from your h^nds any more." ^ II brought that case. He was the complainant, and it was about his wife. To Jury. — Before this I was on good terms with my husband, and he treated me kindly. {Note by the Judge. — This wntness gave hei" evidence freely and without any apparent wish to make any points against her husband, and without any display of animus against him.] • m (Sd.) P. Dickens. i6th May, 1882. Witness No. 5. Deposition of Haru, aged 40 years :—? I am living with my son. My husbandls just dead. I remember a morning — a Tuesday morning — about two months ago, hearing of Nekjan's death. My house is about two or three riisliis (80 or ^120 yards) from the prisoner's house. This is Muluk Chand. He was the father of Nekjan. That morning I went to his house he was crying, and a little girl, Golak, was crying. It was then quite light (broad day), but the sun had not risen. I heard no cries (calls), but merely sobs. I saw Muluk Chand sitting in the verandah and the little girl. I saw Nekjan's body in the verandah. I went close to the • verandah, and stood and looked at the body. I did not go up the stairs into the verandah. To Court. — The body was lying on its back. The legs and arms ^were stretched out, not drawn up. I asked C.olak what had happened. She said — "My father pm his foot on her throat and thrust his spear into her ". My child then began to cry, and I had to go. I had left her at home. I did not question Muluk Chand. I then saw that th^ dead child had a wound above the abdomen. I saw no blood aWout. When the child Golak told me thi.s. her father got up and threatened her, saying — " If you say this I will put my foot on your throat ". Then I went away. I saw the daroga (i)olice officer) come next day, I did not tell him that day, but two dayj afterwards. {Note by the Judge. — I admit this statement under Section 157, Ev. Act.] ^ , ^ t Witness No. 6. The doposition of Dhiru, aged ab^ut 40 years, taken on solemn affirmation, i6th of May : — 12 My father's name is Khoda Bux. I am by caste Mahomedan. My home is at Mouza Bhulat, where I am Hving with my husband. I knew Nekjan,, Muluk Chand, prisoner, was her father. My house is about one mshi (40 yards) off his. I remember her death. It took place about -two months ago. Next morning early I heard Muluk Chand crying. I went there. Golak was sitting near the corpse. I psaw the body of Nekjan in thd verandah, but I did not look carefully. I asl'.ed the little girl, but she said nothing then. Muluk Chand said nothing then. I went back home, and shortly after\\''ards I called the little girl to my house, to take her food. About 2, prahar dSxtx sunrise (9 A.M.) I questioned the child, saying — " You were sleeping with your sifter ? How did she die ? " She said the baba (father) put his foot on her neck and killed her. She did not then mention the spear. I suspected then the father. Her mother was not then at home. She came at bathing time. I did not see her, however, that day. I did not go near the house that day again. I know nothing more. To Jury. — I can't say why the father did such a deed. He treated her well before this. (Sd.) P. Dickens. Witness No. 7. The deposition of Uma Charan Sircar, aged about 40 years, taken on oath or solemn affirmation, under the provisions of Act X. of 1873, before me, P. Dickens, Sessions Judge of Nuddea, this i6th day of May, 1882 : — ^' My name is Uma Charan Sircar. My father's name is Bangsi- dhar Sircar. I am by caste Kopali. My home is at Mouza Bhulat. I am a punchayet and cultivator. *" I know the accused. He is the chaukidar (watchman'; of my village. I knew Nekjan, his daughter. On the i6th Chaitra (28th March) last I got some information from Umesh Ghazi, in conse-' quence of which I went to the house of accused. Accused was there. I got to the house afbout (our dandas after sunrise (7 a.m.). I saw the body of Nekjan in the verandah, covered by cloth. I saw no blood on the clcA.h or on the *mat. I did not go into^he verandah. I looked from outside. I questioned Muluk Chand as to the wound J saw on the chest above the ^bdomen. He said he could'not say who had caused that wound. I saw this spear lying in the road five or *seven haths (3 or 4 yards) from the verandah, and I saw this bagi lying close to a blacksmith's shop — four bigahs (160 yards) from the verandah. I asked why the spear and bagi were out there, and he said he didn't know. He said they were both his. I said — " Leave the things exactly where they were, and go and give information to the police ". I gave him no written ittala (notice). I said I would write one, but he went without coming to me for it. I did not see either Golak or ttie mother when I went to the house. I did not then ask anyone else. I suspected the prisoner somewhat because of his weapons lying about. He told me he thought she musS have died from snake-bite. To Court. — This was after I saw the wound. '•> (Sd.) P. Dickens. Recalled. — The man Fakir, who has brought a criminal charge against accused, is Hving in the same village. (Sd.) P. Dickens, Sessions jftidge. Witness No. 8. The deposition of Dr. Brander, aged about — years, taken on oath before me, P. Dickens, Sessions Judge of Nuddca, this i6th day of May, 1882 : — I am Civil Surgeon of Nuddea. I have read and considered this post-mortem report. Thcwippcarances, recorded by the examiner, arc consistent with death having been caused by the spear wound. A wound one inch deep would puncture the liver, and cause death, but nc4 in my opinion iinmediate death necessarily ; but it might cause irnmed'i^te death by shock. If a man of the^ weight of the accused were to put his foot on the neck of a slight child, it would be • sufficient to cause death' The pressure alone would cause dcath^ by .suffocation. I should say death was caused immediately by the wound, but there is nothing inconsistent with strangulation and partial suffocation. As a rule, bayonet or spear wounds do leave a convulsed appearance on the body, but if .strangulation was taking place, or had These witnesses all agree in saying that the girU told them the same story on the morning q{ the 28th March, and before the police came near the village. / 21 If they are speaking the truth, these facts afford the strongest possible corroboration of that story. If the child has been suborned, they also must have been suborned to support her. It is for you to weigh this body of evidence, and to come to a conclusion for your- selves as to whether it is trustworthy. There is a discrepancy between the evidence of*Haru and the girl as to the plaqe where the Statement was made. The child says that it was in the utan (yard), the woman says that it was in the verandah, the child was sitting. But that is very trifling, for the woman at all events was in the iitan^ and it does not appear to be a point to which much importance should be attached. I shall have to comment further «on the mother's evidence, but for the present I will leave it, and come to the third branch of the evidence — the circumstances which the prosecution relies on as inculpatory. And first as to the spear. The spear produced is admitted by the prisoner to be his, and there seems no reason to doubt that the murder, whoever committed it, was committed with that spear. If not, why (on the hypothesis of the prisoner's innocence) was it left . lying outside for the punchayet to see ? Taking it, then, to be the spear or weapon with which the murder was committed, whoever committed it, which theory best accords with ordinary experience . and reasonable probability— the child's story that the supposed murderer used his owrr spear, or the theory that an outsider used the prisoner's spear ? That the night was dark is an admitted fact. It is proved that the spear was usually kept in the thatch of the verandah, a place where the darkness of the night would be intensified. When a person comes in the darkness of the night to commit a • deliberate murder on a neighbour's child, does he come crinply- . handed ? Does he not usually come with some instrument— a club, a dao, or a spear— to accomplish his design^ The theory for the defence would require the outsiders tq have come empty-handed, or not to have#used the weapon they brought. Again, looking at the fact that tjie place where the spear was kept was in the thatch, the outsider was either a man familiar with the house or he was not. If \ 22 not, it is extremely unlikely that he would have found the spear in the dark ; if yes, it is extremely unlikely that he would have come empty-handed, relyiilg on finding the spear. The prisoner says he usually took the spear when absent at night, and an outsider must, if intending murder, have counted on his absence. As far as it goes, then, the wegipon used corroborates the chili's story. The prisoner unquestionably had the weapon with which death was inflicted, and it is improbable that any outside murderer would have come intending to use that weapon, and unprovided with a weapon of his own. I would not advise you to attach excessive importance to this point if it stood alone, but it is, as Var as it goes, corroborative. In coming to a conclusion as to the truth of the girl's evidence — in other words, as to the prisoner's guilt or innocence, the conduct of the prisoner himself becomes an element of the utmost importance — a test, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, of the highest value. What was his conduct before the event ? — at the time of the event ? — after the event? Was it on the whole consistent withthe conduct of an innocent man in his position? Was it consistent with the conduct of a man against whom, on the hypothesis of innocence, an abominable crime had been committed ? These are important questions for you, gentlemen, and on your answers to these questions, it is plain, much will depend. It is for you to decide what answers you will give to these questions, and what effect these answers will have on the conclusion to which you may come on the whole case. I will merely point out the bearing of the evidence on these points. First, — What was the conduct of the prisoner before the event He sends his wife away the evening before, so as to ensure her absence during the night ; for what ostensible purpose ? To fetch money (which was not forthcoming) from his own brother. Not from her relatives, be it remarked — from his brother. The village Goga is within an easy di [When the Judge passed sentence of death on the prisoner, and informed him that if he wished to appeal to the High Court, he must do so within seven days, he said that bis last prayer was that he might be hanged in his own village, where there were persons who would ^fcel that he was being unjustly hanged for a crime which he had never committed.] \ CHAPTER II. THE PRISONER'S APPEAL TO -THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA, JUNE, 1882. {Before\ihe^Honble. Mr. fustice Wilson and the Honble, Mr. Justice Macpherson.) Capital Sentence Case, The Empress v. Muluk Chand, Chaukidar. Mr. Manomohan Ghose, w'ho appeared for the prisoner, saidj — . This case, my Lords, has been referred by the Sessions Judge of Nuddea, for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by him upon the prisoner, and it also comes before your Lordships on an appeal preferred by the condemned man, oA whose behalf I appear. It is a case of unusual difficulty, whether looked at from the point of view of the prosecution or from that of the defence. The prisoner has been found guilty by the unanimous verdict of a Jury, consisting of his own countrymen, of the atrocious crime of murdering his own chile?, a girl of 9 years, of whom, according to the evidence, he was • very fond, and the motive ascribed by the prosecution for this crime, which renders it even more inhuman, is that the prisoner intended to fix the guilt of t^e crime uppn an enemy of his, Kadam Ali Fakir, with whom he had been on bad terms. Ordinarily,, >vhere a Jury have unanimously found a prisoner guilty, it becomes ^.xceedingly difficult to induce this Court to interfere with the conviction ; and / 29 although, in capital cases, the law allows this Court to examine the evidence and disturb the verdict of a Jury even on questions of fact, yet in the present instance the prisoner's appeal would, at first sight, seem to be desperately hopeless, by reason of the witnesses in the Court below not having been at all cross-examined, with the exception of one solitary question -to one witness put by the prisoner himself, •who was undefended. Besides this apparently>almost insurmountable difficulty, the prisoner stands condemned on the evidence of an eye- witness who is no other than his own child, corroborated by the evidence of his own wife. Nevertheless, the case presents rtlany features of so startling a character, that I'venture to think your Lord- ships will hesitate to confirm the sentence of death passed by the Lower Court, even if you are unable to declare the prisoner absolutely innocent, on a perusal of the record now before you. In trials by Jury, a prisoner under sentence of death appealing to this Court is in a much better position than any other who has received a lighter sentence ; for in the latter case no appeal lies except on a point of law, while in capital cases the Legislature has • wisely enabled this Court to examine for itself the evidence adduced before the Jury, and to form its own opinion upon the value of that evidence. The first jwint arising on the evidence in the case, whicii .. 1 shall submit for your Lordships' consideration, is the total absence of motive for so inhuman a crime. It is true, as the Judge in the Court below remarks, that the prosecution is not bound to prove any motive as a matter of law, but in considering the value of the evidence and the probabilities of the case, regard must be had to the aderjuacy of the motive suggested for the crime. And what is the • motive suggested here by the prosecution ? To bring a false charge • of murder against an enemy. Although crimes of that kind are not altogether unknown in Bengal, yet the Courts will require very .strong evidence before coming to the conclusion that a pian has killed his own child foj the purpose of having his revenge upon an enemy by accusing bim falsely of murder. In this case, hajjpily, the prisoner's own conduct entirely negatives any such theory. ] \ [lJ^i/son,y. — Whom did the prisoner accuse?] He never accused anyone, and never even said that his child had been killed. His statement to the police from the beginning has been — " I don't know how my child died ; my neighbours imagine she died of snake-bite". But the prosecution suggests that the prisoner must have changed his mind shorlly after the murder, and therefore never ventured to charge Kadam AH Fakir. It is difficult to understand why he should have changed his mind if he had killed his daughter for the sole purpose of accusing the Fakir. As regards the prisoner's motive, then, the suggestion of the prosecution is wholly unwarrantable. The Judge, in his charge to the Jury, has throughout assumed that the case must be one of deliberate murder, and, has on that hypothesis asked them to adopt one of two alternatives presented to them, viz., either the prisoner murdered the child, or some enemy of his committed the crime. This was a very serious mistake ; for the case clearly admits of another hypothesis, which never suggested itself to anyone in the Court below, but which has made a very great impression on my mind since I first read the evidence, and which it will be my duty to ask your Lord- ships to adopt in this case. The Judge's charge to the Jury is an elaborate, a laboured, and, I may be permitted to add, a very able effort at persuading them to come to one conclusion, and one con- • elusion on/y in the case. He has given the Jury no chance of avoid- ing the conclusion at which he had himself arrived, viz., that the prisoner committed the murder. Such a charge must have necessar'ly prejudiced the prisoner^ and it would entitle me to ask yoyr Lorci- ships to interfere on the ground of misdirection, even if it were not opeft to your Lordships to review the evidence in the case. [ Wilson, J. — But there is the direct evidence of the prisoner's own child, who was not cross-examined. How are we to disregard that evidence ?] * . >•' . , In dealing with the evidence of the child, your L(S>rdships must have regard, in such a case ^as this, to probabilities, anc^-remember that the prisoner, an ignorant peasant, would be absolutely incompe- / / tent to cross-examine any witness himself. No douht priMo, fade the evidence of a child is regarded as more reliable than that of an adult ; but in this country it is notorious that advantage is frequently taken by the police and others of the precocity of Indian children, who • are easily tutored to give false evidence which the most skilful cross- examination sometimes -fails to expose. In this case,* when your -Lordships consider the improbability of the story told by the child, and the other evidence in the case, I feel*confident you will come to the conclusion that no reliance ought to be placed on her testimony. To my mind, the very fact that the child is giving her evidence against her father, and the wife against her husband/^is almost itself sufficient to indicate that they are witnesses who have been put up for the occa- sion to tell a particular story, and that there is some mystery at, the bottom of the case which the evidence does not disclose. [The whole of the evidence was then read and commented upon.] Mr. Ghose then proceeded : — It is of the utmost importance in cases of this description to notice when and how the accusation was .originally made. If the child Golak ha'd actually seen her father kill her sister, it is utterly inconceivable that, when the head-constable went to the prisoner's house on the 29th, the prisoner was not _ denounced as the murderer by anyone. This is perhaps the most important part of the case. How was it that neither the neighbours nor the prisoner's wife accused the prisoner on the 29th March? The head-constable swears that the prisoner's wife was questioned by him, but she said nothing. She, however, falsely denies having been asked at all by him. This is a contradiction upon a very •important point. If the wife wished to screen her husband then, \/hal . was it that led her to accuse liim subsequently ? The fact is beyond all doubt that the prisoner was never accused before the police until after the result of the post-mortem examipation was kj;iown. And this is a clear indication that the police put pressure upon the child and t'he wife, aij^ made them tell the present story after the doctor had declared that it was not a case of snake-bite. I would submit with \ \ 32 confidence that in this country this circumstance alone renders the evidence absolutely worthless, although the witnesses have not been cross-examined. It is notorious that the police in this country wait for the result of the post-mortem examination; and then proceed to manufacture evidence so that it may fit in with the medical evidence. The story told by the child clearly shows th?it this is exactly what was done on the present occasion. [ Wilson, J. — But how«do you account for the death of the child ? It was not a case of snake-bite.] ■ It is not absolutely necessary that the prisoner should be able to account satisfactorily for fhe death of the child, if he had nothing to do with it. But in the present case I can put forward a theory which suggested itself to me the moment I read the papers of the case, and which furnishes, in my judgment, the real clue to this mystery. Any- one who has any experience of criminal trials in Bengal knows that in the vast majority of cases, probably in more than 90 per cent, neither the prosecution nor th^ defenc e disc lose s the whole truth. There is always, unfortunately, a desperate attempt on both sides to» conceal the facts as much as' possible, and our Courts have therefore the very difficult task imposed upon them of finding out, as best they can, the truth out of an immense mass of false and perjured testi- mony. Bearing this in mind, also remembering that ignorant persons in this country when accused of crimes will not tell the truth, and will set up a false defence even though they are absolutely innocent of any crime, I have little hesitation in saying that, qfter V the most anxious consideration of the whole evidence, I have cofiie to the conclusion that this was a case of accidental death. <\_Wilson, J. — The medical evidence shows that death was caused by the wound in the abdomen which penetrated the liver,] I shall ask your Lordships to reject the medical evidence on that point I cannot conceive of any such wound having been inflicted during life, and yet not a drop of blood coming out of it. The child's clothes and bedding had no blood on them. ^ [ Wilson, J. — How do you say the accident was caused ?] / 33 In the absence of any information, I can only speculate. Is it altogether unlikely that the prisoner, who was sleeping on the Hoot of his verandah with his daughters, had occasion to get up during the darkness of the night, and happened to tread on the throat or chest of the deceased ? I do not say that this is a satisfactory explanation, but it is a possible one.- » [ ]Vilson, y.-^But supposing such an accident had killed the child, how do you account for the wound ?] My Lords, the wound presents no difficulty whatever to me, and it is because I am able to account satisfactorily for the wound 'that I ask your Lordships to hold that the dd^th of the child must have been due to some accident. Appearing for the prisoner, it is no doubt a very dangerous suggestion for me to make, but knowing the character and the ideas of these ignorant people in Bengal, I venture ^ / to, assert that this wound was made after death. ^ [ Wilson, J. — Who made it, and why ?] It was probably made by the prisoner himself to account for the • death of the child ; in other words, to fabricate a snake-bite. [^Macp/ierson, J. — But surely snakes do not make such ugly holes.] I do not for a moment suggest that the wound was made by a Ci_ J sftake. But my theory is that it was made for the purpose of giving /»^/ i t the ap} )carance of a snake-bite. \Macpherson,J. — Every peasant in Bengal knows what a snake- bite is like. No one would mistake such a terrible wound for a SQake-bite.l My Lords, fortunately for my theory, I have got the very best -evidence in su[)port of' it. Whether a genuine snake-bite would - have such an appearance or not, it is needless for us to inquire, when tha fact is admitted that the prisoner himself attempted to pass it off as a snake-bite. He at any rate thoiight it migl^ be taken for a snake-bite. And that is enough for my present purpose. That tie wound was inflicted aftej death is perfectly clear from the appearance of it and from the entire absence of blood ; and that • • 3 \ 34 it was not made by any murderer is also clear from the superficial character of it. Why should any murderer inflict such a gentle wound with a spear, instead of thrusting it deeper? But if it was intended to fabricate, a snake-bite, the superficial character of the wound is easily accounted for. Mr. Ghose then read the Judge's charge and commented upon it, and concluded his address by remarking that if, by reason of the enormity of the crime alleged, and the absence of all cross-examina- tion of the witnesses, the Court, after anxiously considering the evi- dence, could not see its way to acquitting the prisoner altogether, it might adopt another couvse, which the law allowed and which the Judge's summing up entitled the prisoner to ask for, viz., a new trial of tbe case before a fresh Jury. No one appeared for the Crown in support of the conviction. The learned Judges, after a few days' deliberation, delivered the following judgment : — We are unable to confirm the conviction and sentence in this case, because the case was presented to the Jury by the learned • Judge in a manner which seems to us open to grave objection. The charge was one of murder by a father of his child ; the only eye-witness of any part of the transaction was a child : there were many peculiarities about the case upon any view of it. The prisoner, was undefended, and with the exception of one question to one witness, the witnesses were not cross-examined. In such a case the learned Judge would have done wisely to lay the case before jthe Jury with extreme caytion, and to take great care that the ]wy should not give undue weight to the evidence for the prosecution, or overtook or underrate its defects or incongruities. But the effect of the summing up of the learned Judge seems to us to have been to ■ press unduly many points in the case against the prisoner, and to minimise the force of the objections to that case. Almost at the beginning of the summing up the \sarned Judge deals with the question of nvotive for the alleged crime. <-He says — t "The adequacy of motive is no doubt a matter. for your consideijation, / 35 but it is not a point which the prosecution is legally, or as a matter of law, bound to prove ". This direction is perfectly correct. And if the learned Judge had stopped with that, his treatment of the subject of motive would have been open to no, exception. But he in several parts of his summing up pressed upon the acceptance of the Jury a theory of motive which appears to us not supported by the 'evidence, and almost purely speculative. • In dealing with the question of probability, the learned Judge points out the improbability of the crime on the one hand, and of a false charge under the circumstances on the other. And he says — " Whichever hypothesis you adopt, a sl^ock is given to ordinary experience and ordinary probability, and yet it is absolutely certain that one must be true ". It is true that the learned Judge is careful to tell the Jury that they are to decide not on probabilities but on the evidence. But as far as probability is to weigh with these, it is left to them in the way we have pointed out. And the same mode of presenting the case is adoj^ted in other parts of the summing up. Thus it is said — " If the child was not killed by the prisoner, the • murder must have been committed by an outsider and an enemy ". And the learned Judge goes on to point out the difficulties in the way of a conclusion that an outsider murdered the girl. Later on, - , speaking of the spear with which the Judge presumes the girl to have been murdered, he says — " Which theory best accords with ordinary experience and reasonable probability — the child's story that the murderer used his own spear, or the theory that an outsider used the prisoner's spear?" This is an extremely danjjerous way of presenting a case to a Jury. When two alternative views are put before a Jury, 'one or other of which it is suggested must be true, the Jury arencry ' likely to accept that alternative which seems more consistent with the probability and with the evidence. This is wrong for two reasons : — ist, J3ecause it hardly eve^ happens tiaat a Judge can §afely assilmf/ that the alternatives he puts to the Jury necessarily exhaust IhC probabilities of the case ; rwidly, Because it may be right that the Jury, by reason of the obscurity of the case, should refuse to \ 36 adopt confidently any theory at all, and should on this ground acquit the prisoner. In the early part of his summing up, the Judge says very correctly that the prosecution had to prove first " that the crime of murder was committed, and to establish in your minds a reasonable belief amounting fo a moral certainty that the prisoner committed that crime ". But in treating the case in detail, he throughout assumes that a murder was committed, and addresses himself to the question of " Who committed that?" This involves an assumption not only that the girl died from criminal violence, but that the circumstances were such that the crimi; amounted to murder. And this is an assumption which we think the Judge was not authorised in making. Throughout the summing up, the circumstances adverse to the prisoner are pressed as strongly as possible, while those favourable to him seem to us not to have had due weight given to them. The fact that no charge was made against the prisoner for several days after the occurrence is a very important fact. The learned' Judge refers to it as the " single circumstance of importance that appears to throw doubt on the story as told by the prosecution ". He then refers to the wife's explanation, but does not point out that that explanation is contradicted by the police officer. And he then goes on to offer several speculative explanations of her conduct which she herself never suggested. This great diversity in the mod^ of treating the facts on the one side, and those on the other, seems ^o us calculated seriously to prejudice the accused. One material point of the evidence seems not to have been' seriously considered at all. The learned Judge throughout his summing up assumes that death was caused by suffocation and a spear wound. The attentioft of the Jury was not called to the grave doubts arising on the evidence as to what was the real cause of death, and whether the spear-wound- was inflicted before or aftel death, nor to the bearing of this question upon the whole case. / 37 For these reasons we are unable to confirm the conviction and sentence. On the other hand, we do not think we should be justified in allowing the appeal and acquitting the prisoner. The safer course seems to us to be that the prisoner be tried ag^in. 13th June, 1882. (Sd.) A. Wilson. { ,,) W. Macpherson, \ • CHAPTER III. APPLICATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE. t On the 7th July, 1882, Mr, Manomohan Ghose applied before Mr. Justice Maclean and Mr. Justice Macpherson, in the Calcutta High Court, for a rule calling upon Mr. Dickens, Sessions Judge of Nuddea, to show cause why the precept issued by him regarding the selection of certain Jurors named by him to sit on the trial of Muluk Chand Chaukidar should not be quashed, and why the case should not be ■ transferred from the Court of Mr. Dickens to that of another Judge. The application was supported by the following affidavit : — Affidavit of Bahoo Prasanna Kumar Mittra, 1. That I am a pleader of the Judge's Court of Nuddea, and have obtained a vakalutnama* from one Muluk Chand Sirdar Chaukidar, at present a prisoner awaiting his trial on a charge of < < murder, empowering me and other pleaders to defend the said prisoner. 2. That the said prisoner, Muluk Chand Chaukidar was, in May last, convicted by the Sessions Court of Nuddea of the offence of murder, and sentenced to death by the presiding Judge, P. Dickens, Esq, 3. That on the prisoner's appeal, and on the rase being * A power in writing authorising a pleader to appeal^ on behalf of his clif nt / 39 referred by the Sessions Judge of Nuddea for confirmation of the sentence, a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Wilson and Mr. Justice Macpherson, set aside,*on or about the 13th June, 1882, the sentence passed on the said prisoner, and directed his re-trial. 4. That within three or four days after the said order of re-trial - reached Mr. P&rcival Dickens, Sessions Judge of Nuddea, I learnt from certain pleaders and other persons that Mr. Dickens had stated in open Court, within the hearing of my said informants, that he would select as Jurors Mr. Savi, Molla Khodadad, and others, who, in the Judge's opinion, were well qualified, to try the case of the said prisoner. 5. That at or about the same time, I also learnt that the Judge had stated to some of his ministerial officers, that, besides Mr. Savi and Molla Khodadad aforesaid, he would select Baboo Gopal Chunder Shaw, Mritunjoy Roy, and Baboo Haranath Mitter, to sit as Jurors to try the said case. 6. That on learning, as aforesaid, that the Sessions Judge in- • tended to .select Jurors according to his' own idea of their qualifications to try the said case, and believing that such a proceeding would be illegal and might materially prejudice the prisoner, I felt it my duly , to re|)resent the matter to counsel in Calcutta, and, according to counsel's advice. Baboo Tarapada Banerjee, a pleader of the Judge's Court of Nuddea, and I, jointly presented, on the 20th June last, a petition to Mr. Dickens, Judge of Nuddea, an authenticated copy of fthich petition is annexed to this affidavit, and marked A : — The humble pefitioh of Muluk Chand Chaukidar, a prisoner in the Nuddea Jail — Humbly sheweth, — That your petitioner has been informed that on recci])t of the order of the High Court directing that your peti- tioner should be re-tried, your Honour stated in o^jcn Court that you , would si/mr^ion a special Jury for the trial of your petitioner, and that your H-^our would summon for Jhat purpose Mr. Savi, Molla Khodadad, and others. \ 40 Your petitioner begs respectfully to submit that there is no provision of law which authorises the summoning of a special Jury in the mofussil (country), nor is your Honour empowered by law to select any particular Juror or Jurors for the trial of any particular case at the Sessions. ♦ Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that, on reconsidering . the matter, rour Honour will be pleased to direct that under the provisions of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, 'the Jurors to be ■ summoned be chosen by lot in open Court out of the Jury list, and that at ^east fifteen or twenty persons may be so chosen for the pur- pose of being summoned to attend on the day of your petitioner's trial. Your petitioner further prays that, considering the length of time he has been in hajut (prison), an early day may be fixed for his trial, and that, therefore, a special Sessions may be held for the purpose, if necessary, with the approval of the High Court. And your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray. 7. That on the said 20th of June, I accompanied the said Baboo Tarapada Banerjee to the Judge's Court, when he presented the petition referred to in the preceding paragraph. He, Baboo Tarapada Banerjee, first stated to the Judge that he wished to apply • for an early date being fixed for the trial of the prisoner, Muluk Chand Chaukidar, whereupon the Judge, Mr. Dickens, remarked that he could not conveniently try the case earlier than the 17th July. Baboo Tarapada Banerjee then said that his petition contained another prayer, namely, that the Jurors to be summoned might be selected by lot according to Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Dickens thereupon said — " I cannot have a number of pleaders to sit on the Jury," or words to this effect. BabcvD Tarapada Banerjee then observed — " We do not want only ■ pleaders to sit on the Jury, but we simply pray that the Jurors may be chosen by lot ". Mr. Dickens then said — " Why does not Mr. Ghose get the case transferred to Jessore or some other district ? " Baboo Tarapada Banerjee replied — "Jessore is not a Jur;' district. All that we want is that the Jurors should be chosen accprding to law." Mr. Dickens then said — "I have already formed my opinion 41 about the case. It would be difificult for me to change it, unless some strong evidence turns up in favour of the accused. It is very easy for a couple of Judges of the High Court, sitting with the record before them, to say what they like. ... I have already held that two and two make four, and they cannot make me say that two and two make five," (Jr words to this effect. He tken asked — "" What possible objection can there be to an English-knowing Jury ? The Judge's charge loses half its force when translated into broken Bengalee. If the prisoner's chance of escape lies in an ignorant Jury, I am sorry for him," or words to this effect. Baboo Tarapada Banerjee observed — " The prisoner does not pray that an ignorant Jury should be selected. All that he asks for is that no special Jury- men be selected." Baboo Tarapada then read the first paragraj^ of the said petition which he held in his hand, and prayed for an order on the petition. Mr. Dickens, without questioning the correctness of the allegation contained in the first paragraph of the said petition, said — " The petition is in English ; hand it over to me. I will consider the matter and pass orders afterwards.'' Baboo Tarapada Banerjee thereupon handed the petition to Mr. Dickens, who put it inside his box, saying — " If I am to be harassed by such petitions, and if my discretion as regards the selection of Jurors is to be fettered, I will write to the Higb^ Court to transfer the case from my file," or words to this effect. 8. On the next day, that is, the 21st June, 1882, Mr. Dickens pajrsod an order on the back of the said petition, an authenticated cfjpy fj which order is also annexed -to tliis affidavit, and marked H : — . " With reference to the matters urged in this petition, *t is sufficient to say that the first Monday in the ensuing Sessions has been fixed for the commencement of the trial, and that the usual steps will be talien for securing the presence of a rtumbcr of compe- ient Jurors, t « " r. DlCKKNS. '"2/s//une, /SS2." 42 9- I declare that, so far as I or Baboo Tarapada Banerjee have been able to ascertain, after careful and diligent inquiries in the Judge s office at Knshnaghur, Mr. Dickens has not chosen any Jurors by lot in opeti Court, for the purpose of their being sum- moned to attend on the date fixed for the trial of the said prisoner. ' 10. I have further ascertained that, on the 4lh of July instant, the Judge issued a precept to the Magistrate of Nuddea, directing him to summon for the trial of the said prisoner the under-mentioned Jurors.: — Mr. Savi, Molla Khodadad, Gopal Chunder Shaw, Umanath Ghosal, Mritunjoy Roy, Nakuleswar Bannerjee, Khirode Chunder Roy, Jodoo Nath Chatterjee, Bisweswar Chuckerbutty, Bipin Behari Mozoomdar, and Mati Lai Pal Chowdry. 11. That, to the best of my information and belief, the Jurors named above, or any of them, were not chosen by lot in open Court, and that in addition to four out of the five persons whom the Judge had originally selected, as stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this affidavit, he has chosen seven persons for the purpose of being, summoned to attend on the 17th of July. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are unimportant. 14. I further say that it is well known at Krishnaghur that Mr.^ Savi, one of the Jurors summoned, is a personal friend of Mr. Dickens, the Judge of Nuddea, and I verily believe that neither he nor Molla Khodadad, the two gentlemen named in the petition marked A, and now ordered to be summoned, will try the case fairly and impartially, and that neither of them ought to be selected as Jurors after what has transpired. 15. That I verily believe that, having regard to the strongly- expressed opinion of Mr. Dickens, the prisoner, Muluk Chand Chaukidar, will not have a fa'r and impartial trial before Mr. Dickens, the Judge, and that he will be materially prejudiced if thd Jurors are selected according to the di'^cretion of the Judge, instead of their being chosen by lot according to law. 43 1 6. I further say that I have shown this affidavit to the said Baboo Tarapada Banerjee, who has assured me that his recollection of what transpired on the 20th June, as described above, exactly tallies with what is stated in this affidavit. Solemnly affirmed by me, * (Sd.) Prasanna Kumar Miitra. Mr. Ghose said that, having failed to avoid the necessity for bringing the matter before their Lordships, he now felt compelled to make this application, as that course was the only alternative left him. This matter had arisen out of the case tried by one of their Lordships, sitting in appeal with Mr. Justice Wilson, which resulted in the setting aside, on the 13th June last, of the sentence passed by Mr. Dickens upon the petitioner, and in an order for his re-trial. In regard to the first of these prayers, the counsel explained that the Jury had been chosen, not by lot as prescribed by law, but selected by the Judge according to his own ideas of their compe- tency. In the selection of Jurors, that bfficer maintained he had been guided by a desire that the fate of the accused should be placed in competent hands; but Mr. Ghose contended that, under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in such a case, the Judge had no discretion. The Jury, under that section, should be summoned by lot, and in all his experience Mr. Ghose had found that Judges invariably followed that law strictly; indeed, this was the first time he \nd seen it disregarded. Nor could Mr. Dickens justify his depar- ture from the law by urging, as he might, that this was not the first •time he had so acted in regard to the formation of a Jury. .The objection to this course, in addition to its being utterly illegal, was of a very serious character. It was not to be supposed that a Judge, in a case^of this kind, would intentionally «;hoose the Jjjrors from among persons v/io would sit to try the accused with a foregone conclusion of his gu'^ ; but it was necessary thq^t they should not be made to feel, J^y the compliment of a special selection, that they were c}ualified / 44 above others to sit upon the Jury. This implied compliment would have the effect, however imperceptibly, of warping their judgment, and influencing the verdict they would have to return. And this was a case in which that argument applied with more than ordinary force, from the fact that the Judge had expressed a very strong opinion against ihe -prisoner, and sentenced him to death. The Judge's charge, on the last occassion, this Court had thought was open to grave objection ; and if, in the new trial, the Jury were empanelled under a plan of favoured selection, such a course would be an avowed tribute to their intelligence, which would he sure to affect their judgment. But Mr. Ghose based his contention upon a higher ground. He submitted that Mr. Dickens' action was illegal, as being opposed to the terms of the section he had quoted ; * and he would, therefore, ask their Lordships to set aside the precept issued by the the Judge. The prisoner had been placed in a difficult position, as no Juryman could be challenged without good and sufficient cause being shown to the Judge, whose decision upon the point was under the law final. Speaking from his own experience of criminal trials, Mr. Ghose could say that, generally, the Judges were anxious to have a body of Jurors to whom neither side objected. When, however, these are chosen by lot, the accused would, of course, have to take his chance. , Mr. Ghose submitted that it was difficult to conceive a stronger case for transfer than the present one. He said this with regret, as, originally, it was his own suggestion that the case should be returred * S. 407 of Act X. of 1872 (the Criminal Procedure Code in force at the time) enacted : — " The Court of Session shall ordinarily, Vhree days at the least before the time fixed for the holding of the Sessions, send a precept to a Magistrate directing him to summon as many persons named in the said revised list as seem to the Court to be needed ior trials by Jury and trials with the aid of Assessors at the said Sessions, the number to be summoned not being less than double the number required for'any case abou,. to be tried at such Sessions, "The names of the persons to be summoned shall be drawn b}\ lot in open Court, excluding those on the revised list who have served within six months, un- less the number cannot be made ujj without them ; the names so drawn shal) be specified in the precept to the Magistrate." , 45 to Nuddea for re-trial there. But at that time he had no idea how things would shape themselves, while Mr. Dickens himself was will- ing to be relieved from the task of trying the case a second time. Mr. Ghose was aware of the difficulties in the way of such a transfer, having regard to the prisoner's circumstances, and the fact that it would be harassing to the witnesses in the case if it were transferred to another district. He would, therefore, suggest to their Lordships a course which might be adopted to obviate these difficulties, viz., to request the Government of Bengal to depute some other Judge to Nuddea in order to try the case, which he expected would occupy not more than two days. This was the course adopted in the well-known Purneah case of Abdul Kadir, reported in XX. Weekly ReporteVy p. 23, and was one to which the Crown could not object. As. the matter was urgent, and the trial was fixed for the 17th instant, he suggested that such explanations as their Lordships thought fit to call upon Mr. Dickens to make, might be made returnable as early as possible. Mr. Justice Maclean, — But Prasanna Kumar Mittra does not pretend to have heard anything himself, beyond what occurred in his own presence on the 20th, when he presented the petition. Mr. Ghose. — The truth of the rest is confirmed by the Judge's order on the petition presented to him on that day. That petition was drawn up in English, so that he should not have the excuse for saying he could not understand the vernacular. It set out that, as eady as the 20th, wc objected to two of the five Jurors nominated, alad wl^en that petition was read out to hiqi, Mr. Dickens did not dispute or challenge the conectness of our statement that he had staled in open Court the names of the Jurors he intended to select. Mr. Justice Maclean. — That may be accounted for by his refusing to answer in open Court an accusation against himself. Mr. Ghose. T-But if the petition contained so se'ious a charge, the learned J /dj'^ should have at once repudiated it, or done so in the orjler he passed subsequently. In it 'le draws a distinction between Juro.-s and "competent " Jurors. 46 Their Lordships granted Mr. Ghose's application, promising to issue the order in the course of the day, the terms of which, they said, would have to be carefully considered. The rule came onv for hearing on the 12th July, 1882, when no one appeared on behalf of the Crown or Mr. Dickens, to show cause. The learned Judges, after reading the written explanation submitted by Mr. Dickens, delivered the following judgment, transferring the case from Nuddea to Alipur in the suburbs of Calcutta : — Maclean, J. — The prisoner's petition contains two prayers. The first is, that the precept for the summoning of the Jury for the trial of his case be quashed, on the ground that the Jurors named had not been chosen by lot out of the entire Jury list according to Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The second prayer is, " that inas- much as it would be extremely inconvenient and harassing to your petitioner, and all the witnesses, if his case were transferred to another district, and inasmuch as by such transfer he would be deprived of the advantage of being defended by some of the local pleaders of Krishnaghur, who have kindly consented to defend him at the trial, this Court will be pleased to request the Government of Bengal to depute any Judge other than Mr. Dickens for the purpose of trying your petitioner's case in Nuddea on the 17th of July, or on any sub- sequent date ". ( . With reference to the first prayer, we have received a letter from the District Judge, in which he says that the precept was, as a matter of fact, issued under Section 410 of the Code, not 407 ; and he rlso justifies his procedure^ in summoning Jurors duly qualified on tfie ground that the practice has prevailed in hjs district for many years in critical cases without being questioned. He also points out that the prisoner in this ca,se was tried on a previous occasion by a Jury summoned in precisely the same way in which it has now been objected to. ». , ^ "\^'ith reference to the precept having been issued ;jnCj3r Section 410, that section provides for t\ie summoning of Jurors at otlier peripds than the period specified in Section 407, w,hep the number of trials \ 47 before the Court renders the attendance of more than one set of Jurors necessary. In this case, we understand that the ordinary Sessions of the Nuddea district commences on the 14th of this month. It therefore does not appear to us that there was any necessity for making use of Section 410 ; and if there had been, we are also of opinion that, although that section provides for the summoning of Jurors at times other than at Sessions, it does not say that the Jury is to be so summoned in any other than the method prescribed in Section 407. As to the practice which is stated to have prevailed in the district of Nuddea for so many years, all we have to say is, that we recognise no practice except that which the law lays down. The law provides that, ordinarily, Jurors shall be drawn by lot in open Court; and although Section 408 provides for the summoning of special Jurors, that section only applies where the accused persons are entitled to be tried by a Jury constituted under Section 234 — that is, a Jury de tnedieta/e lingttcs, as it is called in other countries. If it were necessary, therefore, that the trial should proceed in the Nuddea Sessions Court, » we should have thought it necessary to direct a fresh precept to be issued in the manner prescribed in Section 407. The prisoner has, however, requested to be tried at Nuddea by another Judge, but we tliink it inexpedient to apply to the local Government to depute any special Judge to try the case. The Judges of neighbouring districts have their own duties to perform, and we do not think that we could inconvenience the public service by asking that a special ofticcr be deputed for the purpose of trying this case, Wc therefore propose to direct the trial of the case at the Alipur Sessions, which will com- mence on the 17th of this month; and we shall issue orders tq the Judge of the district of Nuddea to transfer the case to the file of the Judge of Alipur, in order that the requisite steps may be taken to bring the case on during the ensuing Sessions. The Judge of Nuddea h is stated that he has formed such an extremely decided opinion ac /erse to the prisoner, and has expressed it before the trial, I * that no trial before him, held on the same evidence, would be satis- 48 factory either to himself or the accused. On these grounds we have less hesitation than we otherwise would have had in transferring the case. Macpherson^ J,, \Yho concurred generally with Maclean, J., said that Section 410 should be read alona; with Section 407, and there was nothing in the law to authorise the course which the Judge of Nuddea had taken. As Mr. 'Dickens favoured the transfer of the case, he concurred with Maclean, J., in transferring it to the Alipur Judge's Court. Mr. Ghose asked their Lordships to direct the production of the police papers and the attendance of the medical witnesses from Nuddea, but was told to make his application to the Sessions Judge at ^lipur, who would, their Lordships had no doubt, pass the necessary orders. CHAPTER IV. RECORD OF THE SECOND TRIAL. ALIPUR SESSIONS COURT.— 21ST Julv, 1882. {Before A. C. Brett, Esq., Additional Sessions fudge.) The Empress v. Muluk Chand Chaukidar. The charge against the prisoner was that he, on the night of Monday, the 27th March, 1882, at Bhulat, in the Bongong sub- division, in Nuddea, intentionally caused the death of his daughter, Nekjan, aged about 9 years, by stabbing her with a spear, and thereby committed murder, an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty " to the charge. The Government Pleader, Baboo Bipradas Banerjee, in opening the case, stated that the prisoner had once been convicted at Nuddea, but* the High Court had thought fit to set aside the conviction and direct tlTe re-lrial of the prisoner in this Cofirt. The case for the prosecution was that the"^)risoner had, on the afternoon of Monday, the 27th of March, sent away his wife from home for the purpose, it was said, of fetching some money from his 'brother, who lived in another village, and during his wife's absence from home, some time after YnidfiightJ killed one of his two daughters who were sleeping 'with him\jn t'le verandah of his house. It would be proved that the prisoner put his foot on the throat of the deceased child, Nekjan, 4 50 ] • and then stabbed her with a spear. In the morning he called his neighbours and pretended that he did not know how the child had died, and set up snake-bite as the probable cause of death. He went ; to the thanna on the s^fternoon of Tuesday, and reported the death | of his daughter as having been caused by snake-bite. The principal i witness of tlfe crime would be the prisoner's own daughter, who was j sleeping with him that night, and who saw her father kill the deceased. •' This child told her mother the next morning, as soon as she returned i home, and also told her aunt and another woman what she had seen, ' early on the Tuesday. These witnesses belonged, as it were, "to the enemy's camp," and they would come forward and prove these i facts. It would also be proved that when the police arrived; on 1 Wednesday morning, to investigate this matter, the prisoner took i care to conceal his daughter, Golak, who had seen the murder \ committed, in an onion field, in order to prevent the police from i examining her. The motive for the crime it would be difficult to prove, nor was it necessary to do so ; but the Jury would be able to infer from certain facts, which would be proved, that the motive was ! probably to accuse one Kadam Ali Fakir, who had instituted criminal • j proceedings against the prisoner. The medical evidence showed that j the wound in the abdomen was the cause of death, and if the Jury ' believed the evidence of the child they would convict the prisoner. • On the first witness being called, Mr. Manomohan Ghose, who appeared for the prisoner with Mr. Lalmohun Ghose, wished to know whether the prosecution intended calling Inspector Bipinbehari C|iat- ; terjee, who was the ir^vestigating officer, and who was then presefit l in Court, as, in case of his being called as a ^vitness, he ought to leave j the \3ourt • i I The Government Pleader stated that he did not intend to exa- • mine the inspector. The following vitnesses were then examined : — Witness No. 1. Deposition of witness No. i for prosecution, Dw.arka Rai, aged \ about 35 years, taken on solemn afifirmation under the provisions of Act X. of 1873, before me, A. C. Brelt, A.S.J, of the 24-Pcri;unnahs, this 21st day of July, 1882 :— My name is Dwarka Rai. I am a constable. I know the prisoner. He is .Muluk Chand, chatikidar' (watchman) of Bhulat. About 3 months ago I took the corpse of a little girl, said to be his daughter, and named Nekjan, from his house to Bongong, where I made it over to' the native doctor, who madp ^post-mortem investiga- tion of it in my presence. I brought these two weapons from prisoner's house [points to a spear and a bagi or large sacrificial knife] the day after I brought in the corpse. I found the spear stuck in the mat wall, and the bagi between the wall and the thatch. Cross-examined by Mr. Ghose. — The prisoner came to the thaiina (police station) where I was, about 3 or 4 in the afternoon of a day — I forget what day of the week, to report the death of his daughter. The jemadar (head-constable), Ramdas Sirkar, ordered me to go to the spot ; and I got to Bhulat after sunset that evening. Prisoner had preceded me. It was a stormy night, and I slept in the house of a barber named Modhu, not far from prisoner's house, and saw the body of a female child. On account of the storm I went to the barbers house. I saw no one but prisoner in his house, neither wife nor child, nor anyone ; I did not asit him where his family were. I did not see any relative of prisoner's about. I asked no rjuestions about them, on account of the storm. When I came I had a light lit, and said — "I am going to stay and watch over the body," but wlicn 'the storm came I coi^jd not remain, and went to the barber's. Once in the night, between 10 and 1 1, 1 went to see that the corpse wns all right j I found prisoner seated by it. A light was burning, but I did not take up the cloth to look at the corpse ; I went away. I told prisoner to be careful of jackals. He was alone. The storm had abated, but I w «nt back to eat. Next morning, early, kam 1 )as, jemadar (head- conslable), came. I u:mained with him during his investigation. 'He had the corpse out and examined it. Some neighijours^wcrc present, and some relatives of the prisoner, Jamecr, Sajan, Sham Bahara, Uma Charan, were there. I forget whether Umesh Ghazee was there. I know Dhiru; I do not know her husband, Umesh Ghazee, distifictl'i I tlo not know him at all. ' yNote by tnc Judge. — For .some . reason *r other the witness clearly fences with this matter.] I was ncjt pre.ient when the head-constabl« had the prisoner's lloor dug. i 1 > 'i 52 I had gone to call the ryofs to carry the body. This was about 8'30 or 9 A.M. I was there about an hour. I forget the names of the men whom I brought to carry the corpse. Can't remember one. I don't know that the prisoner's floor was dug. This is the first time I hear of it. I can't say why, when T was asked if the -head-constable had dug it, I said I was not there. [JVo^e by the Judge — Here again witness is evidently averse to tell the truth.] Even that day I did not see the prisoner's wife or ehild. [The witness is told that the day on which the body was sent in was Wednesday.] On Thursday morning the inspector told me that the case was one of murder, and he told me to go to Bhulat and investigate, and he would follow. The inspector said to me — "I hear from the doctor that death was caused by a spear ; you must search and see if you can find any such weapon ". He also told me to bring prisoner's wife and daughter. I got to Bhulat at 9 a.m. I took the wife and the daughter, Golak, and started for Bongong. I met the inspector about two miles out of Bhulat. Besides prisoner's wife and daughter, I had with me Jameer, Sajan, Uma Charan, and Sham Bahara. I had been told by the inspector to bring respectable ijots (villagers), and therefore had these men with me. I started from Bhulat about i or 2 p.m. When I met the inspector I turned back with him. I cannot recollect whether I was present when the inspector recorded deposi-. lions. ^^Note by the Judge. — Witness fences again.] Before the arrival of the inspector I never asked prisoner's wife or daughter what they knew. When I left for Bhulat, on Thursday morning, I left prisoner at Bongong, also the men who carried the corpse. It was not Thursday that I met the inspector. It was on the Friday. On the Thursday night I remained with the prisoner's daughter, wife, and the others, at Bongong. What really happened was this : I met the inspector on the road with prisoner's wife and child with me, and he took them on to Bongong and sent me back for respectable ryots. No, this is really what happened : I met th^'inspector on the road on the Thursday, with the wife, child, &c., and we all went back to Bhulat. I forget whe^re I stopped that night, or where the inspector stopped. I cannot say when the prisoner's wife and child got to Bongong. I forget whether I accompanied them to Bongong. I forget where they were on Friday. I forget where 1 was that day. The inspector came out to investigate on Thursday, biii I innot say what he did, as he sent me*" off for the ryots. I forget whom I 53 brought. I forget what the inspector did after I brought the ryols. I can't say if they were brought. I can't say whether the inspector was in the village on Friday. I was present when the Magistrate in- vestigated the case. There was only one spear exhibited in the case. No, there were two j I only brought one. Re-examined. — T-here is only one house in prisoner's premises. There are two verandahs. The corpse was in the north verandah. I have known the female witness, Dhiru, -since the case. Tiic inspector said to me — " The doctor says it is murder. You go and search for a spear, and if there is a wife of the prisoner, as you say there is, ask her what she knows about it ; also a child, and bring them to me."' I forget where I saw prisoner again after I left him at Bongong. I forget how long after I was sent back to Bhulat the inspector came there. I cannot say whether it was that day or next day. (Sd.) A. C. Brett. Witness No. 2. Deposition of witness No. 2 for prosecution, Adh.\r Ch.andr.x Ch.MvRavarti, taken on solemn affirmation under the provisions of Act X. of 1873, before me, A. C. Brett, Esq., A.S.J, of the 24-Por- gunnahs, this 21st day of July, 1882 : — My name is .Xdhar Chandra Chakravarti. I am the native doctor of Hongong. On the 2yth March last I examined the body of a female child, aged aboyt 10, brought to me by Dwarka Rai, constable. The body was emaciated and liver enlarged. I)ecomj)osition had set in on the head only. 'I'hc tongue slightly protruded, the teeth jjressing the tongue lightly. The brain was congested slightly. I did not examine the condition of the throat. I made no detailed examination as lo whether suffocation was the cause of death. I found a i)unctured incised wound over the- ei)igastric region \ inch dec]), and i inch by \ inch superficially. The wtnind appeared to have been inflltled by a weajton perpendicularly to the body. It had ])enelrated } inch into the liver. The wound was exactly in the centre of the body. I saw the spear when I gave my evidence before the Magistrate, It then bor(> no iVace, to my eye, of its ?iaving l)een lately sharpened. The spe.'h* I s;e before me might have cau.sed the wound. The cause of death was this wound. I found blo-d cxlravasatcd in the i^eritoneal cavity of the abdomen, obout three ounces. Both ventricles of the 54 heart were empty. The body had some clothing on, but there was no blood on the clothing. There was no coagulated blood on the edges of the wound : no blood at all. The blood which I have said was in the peritoneal cavity was liquid, but I was unable to ascertain whether it was coagulated or not. I examined it carefully, but could find no coagulation. When the body was brought to me, a report was attached to it to the effect that death was supposed to have arisen from snake-bite. I found no trace of death by snake-poisoning. I told the police that the cause of death was the wound in the stomach, and gave it as my opinion that the child had been murdered. The constable, Dwarka, was present during ihe post-tnoriem, and I said to him at the time, " This is murder ". I also wrote a report to this effect. Cross-examined by Mr. Ghose. — I have been in medical service for eight years. My pay is Rs. 55 a month. I had to study medical jurisprudence. When the corpse came, the first thing I did was to look at the body. I felt sure that the wound in the belly, whatever produced it, was the cause of death. With that idea I made the post- moriem. I minutely examined the windpipe and lungs, but not the tissues of the throat. I formed no suspicion that suffocation or strangulation caused death. I saw no exterior marks on the throat. *&'■ I made a minute examination of all the internal organs. There was no sign of any blood having flowed out of the wound. I have known cases in which, after an incised punctured wound inflicted during life, no blood has come out of the wound. Such wounds have caused death. [ Note by the Judge. — The witness gives instances, but they do not bear out his statement. One is of a case in which some wounds bled, but some did not; and the other is a case in which the wounds bled only slightly.] It is a main test in medical jurisprudence as to whether a wound has been inflicted during life or not, whether there is coagulation. But \t. is not sine qua no7i. I should say the child had suflered from malarious fever. Enlargement of the liver produces pressure on the diaphragm, which may cause choking sensation, producing cough, but not suffocation. The wound was not triangular in shai)e. I see fr(jm looking at my repo.t [reads] th^-.t I have entered in column 3 that the wound was triangular in shape, but that is an incorrect entry ,\ and was inserted by me because the police reported it to be trian;_,ular. I filled up that report after I had finished the post-vwrtein. I never 55 made any subsequent attempt to have the mistake rectified, or to tell anyone I had made it. I examined the body at 4 p.m. The girl might have been dead forty hours, / did 7iot ihhik it necessary to examine the spinal cord. I did not do so. It took me about two hours to make the post-mortem. Dwarka was present all along. The spleen was healthy. It was not congested. The kidneys were slightly congested. There was a mark as of a scratch on the left cheek. As soon as I saw the wound on the abdomen, and saw its shape and size, I felt sure it was not a case of snake-bite. I should say that from such a wound death might take place after from two to ten hours. Death might be instantaneous. [After some deliberation says :] Instantaneous death might follow from a shock to the nervous system. I think it possible that the wound might have been inflicted im- mcdia^tely after death I am on friendly terms with inspector, Bepin Behari Chatterjee. I had no conversation with him about the/:ase, either the day I examined the body or the day after. He did not ask me either on the 29th or 30th with what sort of a weapon the wound might have been inflicted. Re-examined. — If blood had flowed from a wound, you could tell that it had done so 40 hours after. Q. — Might not decomposition alter the shape of a wound? A.— No. Q. — Did you point out to the Magistrate that there was a mistake about the triangular wound? A. — No, I did not tiiink it was necessary. P.y the Court. — VJhen I saw the tongue protruding, I ascribed it to the effect of decomj)Osition. The eyes also were congested. I also ascribed this to decomposition. (Sd.) A. C. Brktt. Witness No. 3/ Deposition of witness No. 3 for prosecution, IC. J. Brandkr, Saken on oath before me, A. C Brett, Esq., A.S.J, of the 24-l'ergunnahs, this 21st day of July, 1882 : — My name is E. J. Brander. 1 am civil surgeon of Nuddea. I have rea^ the- report of the native dfitrtor in thistase. I cannot say that hi>: opinion is wrong. Congestion of the lungs — ^ihat of the brain, and that of the eyes, — protru^jon of the tongue would be con- sistent with strangulation or suffocation, but would not necessarily 56 lead to the inference of either. If a heavy man placed his foot on the neck of a little girl till she died, the above symptoms would probably be observed. Supposing a man acted in this way, and after pressing the girl's neck/or some time speared her, I should be sur- prised to find no hemorrhage externally. If the spear-wound were inflicted after ^partial suffocation had supervened, ihere would be more bleeding internally than externally, but there would Ijiave been some externally. I cannot conceive any wound causing a solution of continuity from the skin inwards taking place during lifetime, with- out producing some bleeding externally. On the hypothesis put before me, and if no artery had been cut, it is possible the external bleeding may have been slight. Cross-examined by Mr. Ghose. — I received the report on the ist April, two days after it was written. In that report it is not mentioned that there were no marks of external bleeding. After reading all the details of the native doctor's report, I do not think the materials are sufficient for us to predicate that the wound was inflicted during life or after death. A wound in the abdomen might be made to gape by the pressure of the gases generated during decomposition. After forty hours, in March, I should expect to find such gases. Coagu- lation is a main test as to whet,her a wound was inflicted during life, but decomposition tends to liquify coagulated blood. Excluding the shape of the wound, there is nothing in the symptoms detailed in the report inconsistent with death from snake-bite. Protrusion of the tongue and eyes would be produced by decomposition. It would be very difficult, twenty-four hours after death, to" say whether the eyes were congested or not. Q. — Supposing the child had been bitten by a snake on the abdomen, had died, and that some one very soon after death had enlarged the wound, is there anything in the symptoms inconsistent with this ? 4. -No. ' Re-examination. — No questions. By Court, — I said i)efore the Sessions Judge of Nuddea — "The ventricles of the heart are reported empty. Bleeding, therefore, must have supervened. <^'It may have been internal." By Jhis I die], not mean to exclude the question of external bleeding to a visihif extent. I was not asked about external bleeding, and my mind was directed to the fact that the dangerous bleeding would probably be internal. 57 I do not think the native doctor was justified in saying that the case was not one of snake-bite, because he did not notice that the body had turned black, or that the nails were shrivelled. (S'd.) A. C. Brett. The Court here adjourned till the next day. SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. Witness No. 4. The deposition of witness No. 4 for prosecution, Golak Mani, aged about 6-7 years, taken before me, A. C. Brett, Esq., .A-.SJ. of 24-Pergunnahs, this 22nd day of July, 1882. {Note by the Judge. — The child says to tell a lie is a "/^/ " (sin). She does not know what a "/Vhen the day was welTon, Mny mother came home. I told her what my father had done. \ was at Sham Mehtar's house when ni) mother relumed. I had gone to bathe. I mean I was- at home when my mother re- tur;ied. 58 Q. — Do you know when the police came? A. — I was in the (;nion field. I am in the habit of looking after the onions, and I went there of my own accord. I did not see my sister's body taken away, Q. — When did you return from the onion field ? A. — About noon, after the corpse had been t^Aken away. Cross-examined by Mr. Ghose. — The barra ^arogah (chief inspector of police) taught me the word '■'■pup". He said — '■'■ Miiya bolile pap hai ; satya bola bhaia"* He told me this at Bongong. He said to me — '^ Pap hoik ki hoyV -^ At Nuddea I was told by my mother that my father had been sentenced to be hanged. On that day my mother made an offering at the foot of a sacred tree near the court, and gave me some of the sweetmeats which she offered. I have remained with my mother ever since the case. We have not been'\o visit my father in the jail. When I opened my eyes and saw my father killing my sister, I did not sit up. I watched him keeping lying down. \Notc by the Jiidge. — The child is made to show the exact position she kept, and lies down with one hand very slightly raising her head.] I talked to my father in this position. I was still in this position when my father went out. I did not go to sleep, but remained lying down. I,, did not get up to pass water either before or after the deed. I did not want to. I remember giving evidence before the Magistrate at Bongong. I there said that I had awoke because I wished to pass water, but it was a mis- take of memory {inone cheela na X)- I did tell the Magistrate that I was awoke by my sister kicking me. I Saw my father take the spear from the roof. It was kept in a place where you could reach to it with the hand from the bed. The mother of my mother is alive. She is called Koti in the village ; and her house is on the other a'de of the road from ours. , \Noie by the Judge. — The child evinces 'U curious reluctance to answer whether her mothers mother is alive, and says at first that she must ask her mother.] I did not call her when, I saw my sister killed. I did not cry out at all when I saw my sister killed. I wept a little. I did not tell my grandmother, Koti, what I had seen. I never told her. Haru Bebee is my darham nani (called grandnioth(5f, but not plated). I never told ^inyone in my village what I had seen except Haru, Dhiru, and my mother. I have r * " Sin is incurred if one tells a lie." + •' What happens if sin is incurred Y" X " iJid not remember." ( i 59 playmates in the village. I never told them anything of what had happened. After my father returned, having gone out after the deed, he found me seated by my sister on the bed, awake. He did not call out to me — " Golak ! get up ". He began to cry. He called out loudly — " Oh, my neighbours, how is it my Nekjan is dead !" Dhiru is the wife of Umesh-Ghazee, and is sister of my mother. The first person to come, on my father's calling out, was Haru Bibi. Q. — What men came ? A. — Jameer, Sajan, and Sham Mehtar. They are not related to us. My uncle, Umesh Ghazee, came, looked at the corpse, an'd went away. \Note by the Judge. — The child seems very reluctantto say that this man came.] Umesh and my nani, Koti, live in the same premises. I did not tell him what had happened. I did not tell any- one th-at my father had told me to lay the blame on the Fakir. My mother has never asked me why my father killed Nekjan. [Ram Dass, head-constable, is called in.] This darogah ordered the floor of our house to be dug \x\), and my uncle, Umesh Ghazee, dug it up with a kodali (spade). My mother was there. I was there. The floor was dug in order to look for the snake which was supposed to have bitten my sister. Everyone sujjposed this. I did not say any- thing of what I had seen. The daro^^ah did not ask my mother how 'Nekjan had died. [Dwarka Rai, constable, is called in.] This con- stable took me and my mother into Bongong. Wc got there at night. I saw the inspector there. [Identifies Inspector Bipin Behari, who is called in.] I was taken to him yesterday evening after I had been in attendance at this "Court. I and my mother were taken. The inspector told me to tell him what I knew, and I related to him what I have said here. I don't know what my mother said to him. Wc we-se taken in one by one. Yesterday week my mother and I were seated under a tree near Bongong, and Kadant Ali Fakir was with us, giving us water. Kadam Ali has come in with us here. He is out- side the court. ' 1^ Re-examined. — I call Koti my tiaui. She was at home when my sister was killed. She did not con:e. Her fool was swollen. ^Notc by the Judge. — This explanati(in is given with much hesitation, and after several unintelligible sentences on thctpart of the child.] 'I'he corjjse was in the yard (t/tan) when the floor was dug up. m (Sd.) A. C. Breit. 6o Witness No. 5. Deposition of witness No. 5 for prosecution, Barahti, aged about 33 years, taken on solemn affirmation under the provisions of Act X. of 1873, before me, A.'C Brett, Esq., A.S.J, of the 24-Pergunnahs, this 22nd day of July, 1882 : — My name is Barahti. I am the wife of the prisoner at the bar. I had a daughter Nekjan. ^ She was aged about 8 or 10. I went to Goga to get money, by direction of my husband, on account of a case he had with Kadam Ali Fakir. He told me to go to his brother. His brother said he had none. I went in the afternoon, and returned home next morning about 8 or 9. When I came to my house, I found my daughter, Golak, seated on a mat in the verandah, silently weeping, and by her, on tlie same mat, was the corpse of my daugliter, Nekjan. My husband was not there. The corpse was covered with the child's clothes, but these were not worn ; the body was naked. I saw no blood, but I .saw a wound in the abdomen. [Indicates on her own person the locality.] My husband came in some time after. When I came and saw my child dead and the other child by the body, I said to Golak — " How is it your sister is dead ? '* She said her father had killed her sister. She said he had placed his foot on her throat and then speared her. When my husband came in I said to him — " I left my children with you. You sent me off to Goga for money ; now tell me who killed my child." I further said to him — " I have no quarrel with anyone ; you have a quarrel with the Fakeers ". He said — "I don't know who killed her ; I was not at home". He further said — "What has been done has been done; now let us try to save ourselves ". This spear and this bagi (sword) now before me are my husband's. Cross-examined by Mr. Clhose. — My husband was fond of Nekjan. I did not find my husband crying when I returned. I did-not see him cry at all. I did not say to the Judge at Nuddea — " I heard cries'; my child Golak was crying, and my husband was also crying". He never cried [emphatically]. I did not tell the Judge of Nuddea that " I first had a conversation with my husband, and that I then asked Golak how her sister had been killed ". What I say now is true. I spoke to Golak first.' When I saw my husbandjj said to him — " Golak says you killed Nekjan ". He denied it. I dic^ not ask Golak why her father had killed Nekjan. She did not tell me. I saw my mother, Koti, about noon that day, and I said to her — " I 6\ left two children alive, and find one dead ". She said — " Well, you will not get the child alive again ; probably the author of its being has killed it ". When I came home I saw the child dead, and I had no idea before I saw the corpse that anything had happened. I found Golak alone by the body. No villager, neighl)our, or relation was there. I did not tell anyone in the village what Golak had told me. I told my mother only. Ram Dass, head-constable, came to our house the next day. He asked me nothing. I told him nothing. This is he. [Identifies Ram Dass, who is called in.] j\Iy husl>and told me -to go in when this constable came. [^Note by ^/le Judge} — This she says of her own accord.] I went into another hut of ours. Umesh Ghazee dug the floor of our verandah by order of Ram Dass. I saw from some distance. I heard my husband tell the police that Nekjan had probably died from snake-bite. It was on a Tuesday I returned. On the next Thursday was the first time I told the police my husband had killed Nekjan. I did so to Dwarka, constable, in my house, in the presence of the pujic/iayet, Uma Charan. Dwarka took me and G(jlak to Bongong. He accompanied us on the road. He also took Jameer, Sajan, and Uma Charan. Dwarka asked me in my village how my daughter had died, and I then told him her father had killed her. We got to Bongong in the evening. Dwarka was with us. He , took us to the inspector (burra da?ogah) at his house. I had never seen the inspector before. Dwarka kept us at the ihaiina (police station) that night. Next morning (Friday) my statement was recorded, and Golak's statement was recorded. Q. — As you werc^ being taken off, after your statement was re- corded, did you see your husband in custody ? and did you call out to him — " Is it tru6 that you have confessed to ihc police that you killed your daughter?" 'a. — Yes ; I said so. \Note by the Judge. — The witness afterwards retracts'-ihis, but in a very unsatisfactory maimer.] I did not say any such thing to my husbatyj, nor did I hear from him that this was false. "The police did not tell me that my husband had made a confession. After my husband was sentenced to death, I did not go to see him. Some one about the court asked me if I would appeal. I was told that an appeal would not save my husband's life. I therefore took no steps ;o ai;i)eal. The people in the Court tolcl me that an appeal . would C'^st nothing. I made no offering to a saint after my husband wa5 convicted. I was not taken to *Jie inspector's house last night. 62 My daughter, Golak, was not taken. She remained with me. If my daughter has said that she and I were taken yesterday, one 1»y one, | to the inspector, it is because she is a child. If she has said that 1 1 made an offering, I cannot explain it. Last Friday week I did not sit under a tree with' Kadam Ali Fakir. He is now staying in the same house with me at Alipore. Re-exaniined. — I cannot say why he has come in. His wife has come in. ■ . . By Court. — I was very angry with my husband when I found he had kl'lled my child. I said I would never give him food again, and he said he would never take food from me again. AVhen I saw the police come, and saw that my husband was trying to make them believe that my child had died of snake-bite, I did not come forward and tell the true story, because I was not called {^^ Atiidr ddk hoe fiai"). Th(^ wound on the body was long, not triangular. It was wide enough open to admit a finger. I told the Magistrate at Bongong that I suspected my husband had killed Nekjan, in order to bring a charge against Kadam Ali Fakir. My daughter Golak had told me that when she asked her father why he struck Nekjan, he had said — " The blame will be round the neck of Kadam Ali". I told this both to the Magistrate and to the Judge of Nuddea. \_Note by t/ie Judge. — No indication of any such statement is to be found either in the record of the committing officer or in that of the Judge of Nuddea.] (Sd.) A. C. Breit. Witness No. 6. Deposition of witness No. 6 for prosecution, Haru, aged about 40 years, taken on solemn affirmation under the provisions of Acc X. of 1873, before me. A, C. Brett, Esq., A.S.J, of the 24-Pe^unnahs, this 22nd day of July, 1882 : — CMy name is Haru Bibi. I am the widow of Fatik Sardar. I remember when Nekjan died. I know the prisoner. He is Muluk Chand. His house is so far from mine. [Indicates, say, 150 yards.] I heard the voice of a child from prisoner's house, early in the morning, saying— ^•' Who has killed my sister?" She.. was crying and saying this. She did not raise her voice higher than this. [Indicates a decidedly low pitch.] She \yas not crying so as to attract help. I was in my own house. I went to prisoner's house. I found the 63 corpse of Nekjan lying on a mat in the verandah, and her sister, Golak, was sitting by it crying. Golak said to me — " IMy father has killed Nekjan by thrusting a s[)ear into her, and has thrown the spear into the kachu jungle ". She also said he had placed his foot on Nekjan's neck. The prisoner was then seated close to Golak, and when she said this, he got up and lifted his hand at her in a threatening manner, but did not strike her. I saw no nound on the corpse. I did not tell the Judge of Nudd,ea or the Magistrate of Bongong that I had seen a wound. Cross-examined by Mr. Ghose. — There is no man in my house. I am not on friendly terms with prisoner or his family. Th^y have not set up any dharm relationship with me. I did not tell any- one what the child had said to me. When prisoner threatened to strike Golak, he did not say anything. He did not say — " I will put my foot on your throat". ^Note by the Judge. — That appears from the Judge's record.] Prisoner was frying. Re-e.xamined. — I became a widow before Nekjan died. (Sd.) A. C. Brett. Witness No. 7. Tiie deposition of witness No. 7 for prosecution, Duiru, aged about 40 years, taken on solemn afifirmation under the provisions of •Act X. of 1873, before me, A. C. Brett, Esq., A.S.J, of the 24-Per- gunnahs, this 22nd d.fy of July, 1882 : — My name is Dhiru I'ibi. My home is at Mouzah Bhulat. I am the wife of Umesh Ghazee. I'.arati is my full sister. The prisoner at unchayet, and I did not know that it was my duty to report murders ; this is why I did not tell Ram Das what I knew. I was taken by Dwarka Rai to Ram Das, but I had absolutely no con- versation with him. I did notask him why I had been sent for. [Note by the Judge. — After a prolonged silence, whilst the Court is recording witness' previous statement, he says of his own accord :] Afterwards, a little afterwards', Ram Das asked me if I knew how the child had died. I said I did not know. I did not tell him I had any suspicion. When I first went and saw the corpse I asked prisoner where deceased and her sister Golak had slept. Golak was not there. I don't know how I knew that Golak and Nekjan had slept together. I did not see the floor dug up when I was taken to Ram Das. I did not go near enough to see. I saw no blood on the body or clothes. Goga village is a koss off (2 miles') from our village. I hear prisoner's brother lives there. No re-examination'. '' By Court. — I saw the spear and bagi after leaving prisoner's house. The spear was north of his house, and the bagi was 3 rashis (120 yards) west. My house is south of his. When I asked the prisoner how the wound had come, I then had my suspicion aroused, but I ha^ not seen the weapons then. I suspected because I saw a wound. When I got home I did not commence to write an zttila (notice). As prisoner did not come, I wrote none. If I had written^one, I should have'said in it—" I have seen the corpse of 67 Nekjan ; her father says she died by snake-bite : but as I see a wound, I suspect murder ". I should not have said that I suspected anyone in particular. (Sd.) A. C. Brett. » Witness No. 10. The deposition of witness No. lo for f)rosecution, Ram Das SiRKAR, taken on solemn afifirmation under the provisions of Act X. of 1873, before me, A. C. Brett, Esq., A.S.J. of the 24-Pergannahs, this 24th day of July, 1882 : — My name is Ram Das Sirkar. I am a head-constable. On the 27th March I was posted at Sarsa Thanna, which is 9 or 10 ten miles from Bhulat. On the 28th March, about 3 p.m., the prisoner Muluk Chan^ came to me and laid an information. This is it. [Identifies and reads a paper, now marked X.] It was written under my super- vision and signed by me. I was then taking charge from the sub- inspector, and I sent Dwarka Rai, constable, with the prisoner to Bhulat ; Dwarka and prisoner went off together. I followed next morning about 7 or 7*30. I found the body of a little girl lying in prisoner's north verandah. She was said to have been named Nek- jan. The tongue was protruding, the eyes half closed, and there was a triangular wound on the abdomen so big [triangular mark]. [Witness draws a triangle of this size.] I sent the corpse in l)y Dwarka Rai, constable. I remained at Bhulat to take my meals, And I left at 4 p.m. ^io blood was on the body or the clothes. Cross-examined by Mr. Ghose. — When I arrived at Bhulat a number of respectable persons were assembled by the body. This man [identifies last witness] was present. He is Uma Charan, pnnihayet. I made prisoner stretch the triangular wound, and I then car'ifuUy looked into it, and saw that K had no depth. It looked only skin-deep. *I asked the by-standers what they thought \fas the cause of death, and they all said tliat they thought it musl be • snakebite. I asked Uma Chapan, and he said the same. Prisoner's wife was there. I asked what she knew. She said — " I was not there. I cannot say how the child died." L held a surathal (inquest) aJ)out»9'30, and then sent the 'body in. , By Court. — This is the report I wrote of the sura-thal. [Identifie* and rtads a paper marked G by the Judge of Nuddea.] Tjiere was ^Ih at the mouth, and the stomach was distended. 68 The body was not stinking. The names of Uma Charan and Nek- jan's mother are appended to exhibit C. If Nekjan's mother, Barati, has said that she did not see me or speak to me at that time, she has told a lie. I was prepared to accept the fact that the child had died from snake-bite, but I was not quite sure. The .villagers and I thought that the wound might be a snake-bite. By my. order a man, who I have been told is Umesh Ghazee, dug up the floor. [Refers to the police diary containing' an entry to that effect.] He came across some holes, apparently snake-holes, and followed them up without finding any snake. As far as I remember, Dwarka Rai was present when "xhe digging took place. The digging was commenced after Dwarka Rai had brought in the men I wanted. No one told me anything about a l>agt or a spear, I saw no reason to suspect the prisoner. On the morning of the 31st March, a cha?ikidar brought me an order from the inspector to prepare a " first informa- tion," accusing prisoner of having killed his daughter, and the inspector stated in the order that he was himself about to investigate. I was at Sarsa when I got this order. I went to Bhulat, expecting to meet the inspector there, but not finding him, I went on to Bongong. ^^'hen I got to Bhulat, I heard that the prisoner's wife and child had been taken in by a constable to Bongong. I did not hear that the inspector had been at Bhulat. On thinking, I remember that in the purwa7ia (order in writing) there was no mention of prisoner having killed his child ; only that the doctor reported the case to be murder. I found Dwarka Rai at Bongong when I got there. He told me that prisoner's daughter said the' prisoner had killed Nekjan. He told me that the child had said this when she was brought before the inspector at Bongong. On the 31st I went with the inspector to Bhulat. As far as I know, this was the first fime the inspector went to Bhulat. AVhen I first went to see the bo(;?y, the prisoner told me that he had slept that night witK his two children, Nekjan and Golak. This was ' in the presence of the villagers. As Golak was a child, I made no inquiries abour her. It was the case for the prosecution at Bongong and Nuddea that Golak ' had been concealed by prisoner in the onion field to prevent my questioning her. e'l do not remember whether the inspector received any order from the district superintendent to ask me' for in explana- tion as to why I had not examined Golak. I don't know whether th6 inspector re])orted that the reason was because prisoner had "con- 69 cealed the child in an onion field. I don't remember whether the inspector questioned me on the matter. I told the Magistrate I did not find Nekjan's sister — I meant to say that I did not look for her. No re-examination. , By Court. — I heard that the doctor said the wound was deep. I did not tell the Mag«trate or the Judge that I had examined it, and found it not deep. I heard that the doctor said the wound must have been caused by a sharp instrument. I 'did not hear that he said a spear might have caused it. I saw this spear in the Court. It did not str'ike me that this was the weapon said to have been used. I did hear that the case for the prosecution was that the child ha'd been killed with a spear. I did not think how strange it was that a spear could produce a triangular wound. When I told the Judge of Nuddea that tbe edges of the wound were open, I meant that the skin did not meet, but was open. * (Sd.) A. C. Brett. Ex. X. First Information. 28ih March, 1882, j p.m. — Muluk Chand, chaukidar, aged 40 or 41 years, of Bhulat, arrived at the station and deposed as follows : — Yesterday my wife was not at home. ' I was sleeping last night with my daughter Nekjan, aged 8 or 9 years, in the east verandah of my house. At one prahar of the night remaining (3 a.m.), I went to look after my onion field, which is about 20 rashis (Soo yards) to the north bf my house, leaving the said daughter asleep in the verandah. At dawn when I returned home, I found my daughter lying dead in bed, froth coming out of her mouth. On examining her condition, I found on her stomach a slight mark as of a cut or bite ; her colour hatf turned blue ; no other mark or wound was apparent on the body. Tarn not aware of the cause of death ; and i have no suspicion re- garding her death. Tli'^ is my statement. I do not know to read br write. ' -|- Muluk Chand, Chattkidar of Bhulat. Ex. C. *• Inquest Report on the Death of Nekjan Chokri. ,2gt}r March, 1S82, 7 a.m. — In tlfe presence of Prahlad Ghosh, Sajc-wi Mandal of Bljulat, Jameer Mandal, Atar Ghazee, Amiruddi 70 Ghazee, Kalu Ghazee, and Uma Charan Sircar, punchayet, and other ryots of the village, and Barati, mother of deceased, and Muluk Chand, the father, I saw the corpse lying in the north verandah of the east facing house, covered with a piece of cloth. I caused the corpse to be brought down to the yard, and after uncovering it I observed as follows : — Age about 8 or 9 years, dark complexion, long hair on her head, stomach swollen, the tip of the tongue between the teeih, froth issuing from" the mouth and nostrils, emaciated in ap- pearance, a triangular mark of a cut or bite below the chest, measur- ing the breadth of one finger ; eyes shut. No other mark or wound on the body. (Sd.) Ram Das Sircar, Head-Co7istable, Sarsa Police Station. « Examination of the Accused Person. The examination of Muluk Chand Chaukidar, aged about 35 years, taken before me, Gopal Chandra Mukerji, Deputy-Magistrate, ist class, at Bongong, on the 31st day of March, 1882 : — My name is Muluk Chand Chaukidar. My father's name is Ashruf Sirdar. I am by caste Mahomedan, and by occupation chaukidar. My home is at Mouza Bhulat. Q. — Did you murder your daughter Nekjan ? A. — No ; I did not kill her. Q. — On what date, and when did she die ? A. — Early on Tuesday I went to look after my onion field; no ' one was in the house except the two girls ; my wife had gone to Goga on Monday afternoon. On my return from the field I saw my eldest daughter, Nekjan, lying at a little distance from her bed. I called her, but she did not answer. I felt her body, but she did riot move. A\hen it was darlight, I saw that she had a wound, and was dead, and my daughter, Golak Jan, was asle^n. I began to cry. At four oc six dafidas of the day (8 a.m.), I was going to the ihanna ' when I was arrested by a piada (peon) on the complaint of Kadam Ali Fakir, who had taken out a warrant against me. Q. — After that, \yben did you go to the t/ianna ? A. — After midday I went to' the thanna and informed the daroga (police inspector). , Q. — How far is the thanna from your house ? •- ^ A. — Four or four and a half ^^j (8 or 9 miles). , 71 Q. — When did you leave your daughters and go to the field ? A. — When there was oneprahar of the night remaining (3 a.m.). Q. — Why did you send your wife away from your house ? A. — To obtain money, with a view to defr^' the expenses of the case that was pending against me. Q. — Is this spear yours ? A.— Yes. Q. — Why does it look as if it had been rulJbed ? A. — I cannot say ; I did not rub it. I did not take it with me to the field. I took my latii (stick). Q. — When you go to the field or to your watch, do you carfy the spear or the laiti? A. — Sometimes I take the spear, sometimes I take the latti (stick). Q. — Whom do you suspect having killed your daughter ? » A. — I did not see anyone killing her, and my suspicion does not fall on anyone; but I have a quarrel with Kadam Ali Fakir and Mirun. Q. — How many s])ears have you got? A. — Only this one ; the other one has been falsely produccd'as mine. Q. — Had your daughter any ornaments on her person ? • A.— No. Examination of the Accused at the Previous Trial. » Under Section 34 S of the Criminal Procedure Code, by Mr. Dickens, Sessions Judge of Nuddca, dated tlic i6th^May, 1882 : — My name is Muluk Chand Chaukidar. My father's name Ashfuf Chaukidar; by caste Mussulman; inhabitant of Goga, Thaiina Sh^rsha, at present residing at I3hulat. Q. — Are you guilty of the charge ? A. — I am not guilty. ' Q.— Did you make this statement before the Deputy-Magistrate, 'and is it correct? [Read exhibit D.] A. —Yes, I made this statement, and it is correct. Q.— Why did you send your wife to Goga, iristyad of going there yourself? ' A. — Lest the police should find me absent from the village, and beai me '; through fear of this I did n(5t go. Q. — Why did yo'i not go during the day ? 72 A. — They (my people at Goga) do not stay at home during the day, but go out to the field, &c,, and cannot be found at home during the day, so I did not go during the day. Q. — You have said,that you saw, on your return from the field at night, that your daughter was lying at some distance from her bed, and that you called the neighbours at daybreaki Why did you not • light a lamp as soon as you came and saw, and why did you not im- mediately call your neigiibours instead of keeping quiet ? A. — I called out for my neighbours as soon as I saw my child on my retiirn from the field. Q.-^Did you tell the punchayet of the village and the police at the thaiina that your daughter had died of snake-bite ? A. — Yes, I said that my neighbours say that my child has died ot snake-bite. Q. — Will you call any witnesses ? A.— Yes, I will. Q. — What will they say ? A. — They will say that they said about the snake-bite. P. Dickens, Sessions Jtidge. (I Memo, of the Statement of the Accused. My wife was away. I went to bed with my two little girls, Nek- jan and Golak. Towards the end of the nigh| I went to look after" my onioa'field. • I found some cattle trespassing, and drove them away. I returned and smoked. When I came to my children I found that Nekjan's head had rolled off the pillow and was lying on the ground. I raised her up, and found she was dead. I began to lament loudly. My broiher-in-law, Umesh Gazee, came. Afterwards came Sajan, Jameer, some women, and others. Then Umesh went to call Uma Chtixvin, pufic/iayef. We found a small wound on her' belly, so big. [Shows on a piece of paper.] Uma Charan and others told me I was to go and inform at the thamia. I went towards the thntma, but was arrpsled by a peon on the road who had a warrant for me. He kept me about an' hour, and let me go on "payr»:ent 'of 4 annas. I'reached the ihaTina about 3 p.m. The wound was only • skin-deep. When Ram Das, constable, came, he made me 'stretrh out the wound, and it was then clear that it was not deep ; it looked 73 as if a piece of skin had been pinched out, and everyone said it was snake-bite. (Sd.) A. C. Breit, July 24, 1882. J No witness is called for the defence. > July 24, 1882. Judge. (Sd.) A. C. Brett, Judge., At the close of the case for the prosecution, the Judge asked the Government Pleader to sum up his case. The Government Pleader said he would rather not address the Jury, but would leave the case in the hands of the Court. The Judge remarked that he saw no reason why the Government Pleader in this case wished to depart from the usual practice, and that it would be better for him to address the Court. The -Government Pleader then summed up the case for the pro- » secution. He saw no reason why th^ evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, especially that of the prisoner's wife and daughter, should not be believed by the Jury. Mr. Manomohan Ghose, in addressing the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, after some prefatory remarks, dwelt on the complete absence of any motive for the crime with which the prisoner was cha/ged. Although, as matter of law, it was not incumbent on tlie prosecution to prove a motive for the crime, yet if ever there was a case in which the Jury would require the most satisfactory Evidence of motive, it was the present, in which the prisoner was • said to have murdered his own child, of whom he was admittedly very fond. The motive suggested by the prosecution — namely, that the prisoner intended to bring a false, charge of Vjurdcr against his enemies — was completely negatived by his own conduct immediately after the, death of his daughter, when, he never even suggested that his daughter had dijed by violence, much less been murdered by 74 Kadam Ali Fakir. A desperate attempt had been made by the pro- secution, or some one who was pulling the strings from behind, to supply the missing link on the present occasion, by making the child Golak depose here for ti.e first time that the prisoner, while commit- ting the murder, had advised her to accuse the Fakir, but this piece of evidence \Jr. Ghose was therefore confident the Jury would acquit the prisoner without any hesitation. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE TO THE JURY. Gentlkmen of the Jury, — The prisoner -ij charged with the murder of his own child, a little girl under lo years of age — a child of whopi he has been said to have ,)Deen fond, and to whom he has ■ bee;i said to have been kind, and the only eye-witness is another 78 child of his, a little girl younger than the deceased. To account for the prisoner's act (an act, the brutality of which renders it, I may say, incredible, unless accounted for by motive or explained by insanity), the prosecution says that the prisoner had a quarrel with one Kadam Ali Fakir, with whose wife he was suspected of having had criminal familiarity, avid who had taken proceedings against him, and that he (the prisoner) killed his daughter in order to fasten' a charge on his enemy, Kadam Ali. It has been impossible to conceal from you during the trial of the case, that a Jury sitting at Nuddea had found the prisoner guilty of murder, and that sentence of death had been recorded against him. But, as has been very properly put to you by the Government Pleader, you must not allow that fact to influence you in any way, and you must approach the case as if it was an absolutely new one. The manner in which the prisoner is said to have killed his child (Nekjan) is this: On Monday afternoon, the 27th March, prisoner sent his wife to his brother's house. She took with her one little girl and a sucking infant. Prisoner was left with two girls, Nekjan and Golak. They three went to sleep on the same mat in the verandah. • In the night Golak was awakened by Nekjan kicking her, and when she opened her eyes she saw that her father was pressing Nekjan's throat with his foot, so that she (Nekjan) coi^ld not articulate, but' was writhing, and then stabbed her with a spear in the abdomen. After this Nekjan lay still, and Golak knew by pulling her that she was dead. , Now, if a person is suffocated and stabbed, you expect to be told that a post-7nortem examination of the body will enable a medical expert to tell us that he saw signs of suffocation, and that death was,' evidently produced either partly by suffocation and partly by stabbing (that is, by the combination of two injuries), or wholly by one or the other. But in thistcase we haye the following extraordinary results from the medical evidence: — i. No trace of suffocation was observed by the doctor who cut up the b^dy. 2. The wound of the abdomen, which that doctor reported after he had examined the body to be J:he 79 cause of death, is not a serious wound. 3. The superior of that doctor, to whom his report was submitted, tells us that he does not .think the materials are sufficient for us to predicate that the wound { was inflicted during life or after death. 4. The superior officer tells us that he does not think the former had sufficient cause to state as a matter of certainty that death was not caused by srake-bite. 5. He also tells us that if the child had died from snake-bite in the abdomen, and that some one had shortly after death increased the size 01 the wound, the symptoms observed in the body would not be inconsistent with such a hypothesis. I must direct you that on such medical evidence, which was the only evidence submitted to you, it - is impossible for you to find that Nekjan was killed by violence.* You will remember a curious incident which came out in the exa^pina- tion of the native doctor, viz., that that officer, in column 3 of his report, writes that the wound was triangular, and he tells us that (though this was not proved) he had inserted this in his report, which he drew up after making his examination, because the police had reported it to be triangular. Again, though there were appearances , in the body calculated to suggest the suspicion of strangulation, the native doctor made no examination specially calculated to elucidate the point. Further, though he observed that no blood seemed to ^ave flowed out of the wound, he did not examine whether there was anything to show that circulation had been suspended previously to its infliction (which is the only possible cause which could prevent blood coming out), and he did not even notice the fact in his report. L/egret to be compelled to say that the inference is that this officer conducted \\\% postmortem examin.'iif'i in a most perfunctory manner, and acted in a manner which si iliat he did not realise the responsibilities of his position. Placed as he was in the position of a scientific expert, he gave expression to categorical opinions on insufficient data in a matter of life and death. Whilst I am on the subject of the wound, I would point out to you how extraordinary it is tha^t the native doctor should slate that it is such a wound as wou|d be produced by a spear. AVhen the prisoner went, on the 8o 28th, to the tho?mai he reported that his child had died from snake- bite, and that there was a slight wound on her stomach. Mark the word slight. The man must have known that a poUce officer would be soon on the spot, agd if the wound had been such as the native . doctor describes, his story would at once have been proved to be false. Agaiiv, when the head-constable came down (he was clearly not in a hurry, but aqted as one would expect Him to do when nothing grave was before him), he held the usual suruth-hal, or rough 'mquest, prevalent in the mofiissil^ and reported the wound to be slight and triangular in shape. You will remember the witness Uma Charan (a witness of whom I will have to speak later on) ; he is the village pmichayet, and when he was in the witness-box I drew a triangle and a straight line on a piece of paper and asked him what was the shape of the wound. He selected the triangle. How, then, ' did the triangular wound of Tuesday become the rectilineal wound I of Wednesday or Thursday ? The whole of this portion of the case tends to lead one's mind into a path which might carry us to most startling conclusions, but which must pass through the mire of uncertainty ; and in the presenV case it is specially necessary to divest . your minds of all speculation, and keep steadily 'before you the affirmative issue— "Has the prosecution proved the prisoner's guilt?" But I have placed these considerations before ^ou because they tend to emphasise the worthlessness of the native doctor's report. But although we are left in the dark by the medical evidence, yet, if you believe the story told by the child Golak, there is sufficient for you to come to the^ conclusion that the prisoner killed^ Nekjan, and such killing would be murder. I will now proceed to examine the child's story, connecting it, of course, with the depositions of tht other witnesses, and will simply premise this : It is, of tourse» necessary in every case to weigh carefully every statement, but if there is a case wliere more anxious deliberation than ordinary is called for, it would be such a one as the present, where the medical^ - evidence does not help the statement of the witness. Now, you have seen this little girl, and you will have noticed,.that 8i she is intelligent. At the outset of her story we are met with a con- siderable discrepancy between what she says now and what she said before the Magistrate. Before the Magistrate she said she awoke to answer a call of nature, but here she says her^ister kicked her. To the judge of Nuddea she said something touched her body. She says that what she told the Magistrate was a lapse of memory : you will remember the vernacular expression she employed. Apart from other considerations, this is a serious discrepancy ; but docs it not raise in your minds a suspicion that some one has made the child give an account that would sound better than the first? Again, you will note — and this is of the highest importance — that in this Court she has added a statement of which not a word was breathed at Bongong or at Nuddea, namely, when she questioned ^ her father at the time, he told her to lay the blame on the Fakir. V The effect of this is, of course, to make a basis for the story of motive to which I have before alluded, and to which I will again refer. And the prisoner's wife, in answer to some questions which were put to her by myself, says that the child told her that her father had said to her — " The blame will be pound the neck of Kadam Ali ". Now, do you c6nsider that if the prisoner had really made any such statement, it would only come out at this stage? If he did not, the •^hild must be lying in saying that he did ; and if she lies, she must have been taught to lie. Now, in connection with this, I will draw your attention to the following circumstances; — You will rcincmbcr that.this case commenced in this Court on Friday ; on that day were examined three witnesses, and on Saturday the first witness in the box was the child ; she was in attendance on Friday, and she was ;:skcd on Saturday what happened to her on Friday after she vfas released from attendance. She tells us that she and her mother were taken to the inspector's residence, and there she and her mother were introduced to him separately, and she was made to rehearse her s.tory. Of course the inference is, from the child's evidence, that the mother was made to do the same. The mother denies this. You will Weigh the statem(^nts. Again, you will note that the child was 6 1 82 asked a very simple question as to whether her mother's mother was alive, and that, though she evinced a singular reluctance to answer this, she eventually admitted that she was alive (and there can he no doubt the old woman lives in the same premises) ; and once, when the question was pressed, she said, "I must ask my mother ". It is inconceivable that a child should have any natural difificulty in saying that she had a maternal grandmother living iri the same house, and thus you have before you the following facts : — (i) The child at the third hearing of the case introduces an entirely new feature about her father having told her to lay the blame on his enemy ; (2) she tells us how she was taken, after leaving this Court, to rehearse her story to the inspector; (3) whilst questioned as to a circumstance, which must have been as well known to her as the alternation of day and night, she says she must ask her mother ; and still further, you will remember that as a child she was not sworn as an adult, but she was questioned as to her knowledge of truth, and she said that a lie was a sin — pap was the word she used, and that she told us the inspector had drilled her on this subject. You will have to say whether these circumstances 'lead you to accept the child as a spon-< taneous witness of what she saw, or as a witness who has learnt a lesson. And I need hardly point out to you that, just as a child's evidence is ordinarily valuable, because of its prima fac'.e spontaneity, so is it-.'j value depreciated when there is anything to cause a suspicion of tutoring, because of the facility with which children yield to outside influence. , Then look at the .manner in which the case is presented to^us. The person to put the engine in motion is the prisoner. He told the l^olice that there was a slight wound on his child's stomach, and that he thought she had been bitten by a snake. The head-constable. Ram Das, evidently thought that thcJre was nothing calling for a display of energy', and sent iiis subordinate, Dwarka -Rai- This man was treated by the prosecution as a merely formal witness, who hod to prove the identity of the forpse. ]>ut when he was subjected to cross-examination, he turned out to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory 83 witness, who, though he was deputed by the inspector to take a leading part in the investigation, and must have known as much, and perhaps more, than anyone connected with the case, sheltered himself under the plea of " I do not rememJDer," almost invariably, | whenever any important question was asked him, and whose evidence was so full of contradictions that it was difificult to record. When the inspector was told by the native doctor t'.Aat the case was one of murder, this man was the official selected to go down and see into it. He tells us that he did not ask the prisoner's wife and child what they knew. This is a statement in itself difficult to believe, and it is directly contradicted by the wife, who says that tlie first person to whom she told what she knew was this Dwarka. t have said that Ram Das was not in a hurry. After sending Dwarka on Tuesday, he followed on Wednesday. I have already told you how he accepted the theory of snake-bite, held his inquest, and reported accordingly. ^Vhatever you may tliink of his subse- quent conduct, there is nothing to show he was not then acting with l?oua fides. He tells us that he very carefully examined the wound , on the abdoftien, and that it was supzrficial and triangular. He also tells us that he asked prisoner's wife what she knew, and that she said — " I was not there. I cannot say how the child died." He tells us that the floor of pr?>soner's verandah was dug up, and a search was made for a snake.. You will have noted how the other witnesses have answered questions as to this digging up, and you will consider whether you are satisfied that the floor was dug up. You will ask jourselves whether you do or do not think that there was then a bonfi *> '* fide belief in the theory of snakc-bitc. On this point you will notice that the man Umcsh (Jbazee, who is said to have dug up ilic (locr, is not called by the prosecution, and his wife Dhiru, who is called, sa)s he took a kodali (spade) for the purpose of digging up the floor. The n-jxt r-tage in the rase is, that the body is examined by the native doctor, whose report I iiave already analysed for your benefit. I need not recapitulate. Ihe result was that the prisoner was put on his trial for murder. 84 Now the men who took up the clue given by the doctor were Dwarka, constable (under the orders of the inspector), and the inspector himself. I have examined the non me recordo evidence of Dwarka, and it is certainly a singular fact that the inspector has not been i)ut into the witness-box, and this point I would draw your attention to. <■ Assuming that the native doctor fcand a deep incised wound, the only thing 'that he could predicate was that it had been caused by a sharp-cutting instrument. But Dwarka tells us that the f inspector ordered him to go and look for a spear. It is clear that a number of men were on the spot soon after the event, and yet the only man produced is Uma Charan Punchayet. The prosecutor says that the first person to come to the prisoner's house after the murder was the old woman Haru, and the next was the younger Dhiru, sister of prisoner's wife. You will notice that although these women are supposed to have been attracted by the cries of a child, yet the child says she never cried ; and in fact, part of the evidence goes to show that it was the prisoner who raised the lamentation which drew the attention of the neighbourhood. The child says that her father, wheniie returned, called out loudly — " Oh, > neighbours, how is it my Nekjan is dead ? " Although the wife told the Judge of Nuddea that she found her husband crying, she says here most emphatically that he never cried, e The old woman Haru's statement is as follows : — She says she heard the child crying, and went to h^r, and then found the prisoner with the living child and the corpse. Golak told her that her father had killed Nekjan in the manner related, and the prisoner lifted bis hand on the cbild in a threatening manner, but did not strike her. She contradicts here what she said at Nuddea on two points. There-- she said she saw a wound : here she says she did not. There she said prisoner threatened to strangle Golak : here she says he did not. From the evidence of Dhiru' (sister of prisoner's wifq), whether she went to prisoner's house or not, it is clear that her husband preceded her, and, as I have pointed out before, though he must be a'^material witness, he is not called. This woman says she did not go up tG the 85 body, and she is throughout consistent in what she says the child told her, which is, that the prisoner had killed Nekjan by pressing her throat with his foot, but without mentioning anything about the spear. The prisoner's wife is the next woman brought H^n the stage, and she says that the prisoner's guilt was revealed to her by the child. It is manifest that the object of the prosecution in tendering these three ' women for examination as witnesses is to get over or avoid the stumbling-block created by the inference that the child had not said to those around her what she had seen. The case for the prosecu- tion now is, that she told it to Haru at one time, to Dhiru at another, and to her own mother at another. No two together, you observe. Sporadic evidence of this description is easy to make, and presents few opportunities to the cross-examiner. And it seems to me to raise another difficulty whilst endeavouring to avoid the first. Prisoner's wife knew the facts when Dwarka came first, and when Ram Das followed him. She admits hearing her husband tell the police that the child had died from snake-bite. She narrates to us vividly the particulars of a violent quarrel she had with her husband " when she discovered and noted the perfidy with which he had sent her out of the way. She told him she would never give him his rice again, and he told her he would never again take it at her hands. You, gentlemen, will understand that this was war to the knife declared between them. Hut slie says she never said a word to any policeman till Dwarka's second visit, and her explanation is that she waiP not called. She is contradicted by Ram Das, who says that he did ask lier what she knew, and she is contratlicted by Dwarka, who says he did not ask he, and her name is attached to the report of the inquest sent in by Ram Das. I have previously drawn your attention to the fact that, of all the men of the village who must have known something of the facts, only one lias Deen called. The exception is Uma Charan I'un- chay^t. This man commences his evidence by saying that Umesh Ghazee (you will remember him as the husband of Dhiru and the man who dug the floor, but has not been called) came to him and 86 told hira that he was requested to come by the prisoner and a number of men, as Nekjan was lying dead. He went and saw the corpse, asked the prisoner how the child had died, and was told by him at first that he could not tell, and afterwards that it was a snake- bite. He examined the body, and saw a triangular wound. The rest of his evidence is an attempt to make us believe, that he had his suspicion ; that he saw a spear in some jungle in one place and a large sacrificial knife in another place ; that he gave orders that these were net to be touched, and he told the prisoner to go and report the matter to the police, and to take a written report with him, which he (witness) was just going to write at Iiis own house ; that the prisoner never came, and the report was never written. The counsel for the prisoner has described this in addressing you as a "cock-and- bull " story. The epithet is a graphic one, and I think appropriate. And we find that this man's name is attached to the report of the inquest. Ram Das was examined after Uma Charan, and it was during the examination of Ram Das that this fact was discovered ; otherwise, probably, Uma Chajan would have been severely cross- examined on the point. I have already told you that there is no legal necessity for the prosecution to prove the existence of a motive for the deed. But t the prosecution has very naturally considered it advisable to set up and try to prove a motive. But up to the time the case was presented in this Court, the existence of the motive was a matter of pure specu-. lation. Certainly, the prisoner had been accused by one Kadam Ali Fakir of having iridecently as.saulted his wife ; and after heanng the wonjan, who has been put into the witness-box before us, we may reasonably entertain a strong suspicion that there was an intrigue between her and the prisoner. But there was nothing but hypothesis on which to cony.truct the theor)' of motive, and when the obvious objection was rai.sed that the prisoner had made no accusation against the Fakir, the prosecution was^^driven to another hypothesis, and that was, that probably the prisoner had changed his mind, and feared to go on when he found that his other child had 'blurted out the truth. 87 This is not evidence; it is imagination. Now, as I have said, we have the child saying that her father disclosed his plot to her at the time. That is to say, what was before based on nothing is now based on a lie! ' It has been argued — "Can you believe that a child and a wife can try and bring a man to the scaffold by giving^false evidence ? " No doubt, it is a violent shock to one's feelings to suppose so. But a very suggestive cirfcumstance has been deposed to in ihis Court by the child. She says that after her father was sentenced to death at Nuddea, her mother made an offering at the foot of a sacred tree near the Court, and gave her some of the sweetmeats which .she had offered. The mother denies this. You have heard them both, and you will say which you believe. Further, the woman admits that she never went to see hei husband in prison, and that though persons in Court told her that she could appeal for nothing, she made ao at- tempt to do so. If you infer from these circumstances the existence of an animus on the part of the wife, not only does the difficulty dis- appear, but you can readily understand how easily the mother, and through her the child, could be manipulated. You have, then — (i) Medical evidence founded on a perfunctory post-mortem and a self-contradictory report, which leaves liie cjuestion of the cause of death unsolved ; (2) the deposition of the child, eye- witness, with a manifest lie in it, and open to very grave suspicion of having been tutored; (3) the general evidence, which I have analysed for you; (4) the story of the motive, originally pure speculation, requir- ing additional speculation to make it plausible, and now sujjported by a lie ; and (5) the evidence as to animus on ihe part of the wife. No doubt the case is involved in mystery ; but your duty does not extend to the discove-^- of absolute truth, but only to discovering ' whether it is proved that the prisoner is guilty. /u/y 24, 18S2. (Sd.) A. C. Brett. The jury,' after retiring for less tfian a minute, returned a una- nimous verdict of " Not guilty," in which the Judge said he entirely concurred. The prisoner was thereupon acquitted and released. CHAPTER V. THE MYSTERY REVEALED. After the case was transferred by the High Court from Nuddea to Alipur for re-trial, I decided to defend the prisoner, and about the middle of July, 1882, I visited him in the Nuddea jail, at the request of his Pleader, Baboo Akhay Kumar Mukerjee, who thought that if I personally saw the prisoner, he might be disposed to com- municate to me some information regarding the case likely to prove useful at the second trial. I -.vas accompanied by the Pleader and by Dr. Brander, the superintendent of the jail, who stated to me that from the beginning he had entertained grave doubts regarding the prisoner's guilt, and who also expressed his regi3t that during the trial at Nuddea there was no one to examine him on behalf of the prisoner, and to elicit from him evidence likely to help the defence. Soon after our arrival, the prisoner was brought in, and on my name being mentioned to him he fell prostrate at my feet and began to weep. What transpired at the interview will appear from the following con- vercation between the prisoner and myself: — " I am entirely innocent. Save my life." " But how did your child die ? Until you are able to give me some information' on this point, it will not he possible for a.iy of us to defend you properly." "I know nothing about it.' 89 " You must know something, and unless you tell us the truth on this point we can do nothing ; your case is an extremely difficult one." " I know nothing." ^ " But why does your own daughter accuse you of the murder ?" " The police have tutored her, and her statements are false. My J wife and daughter have both been saying what they were taught to I say.'' At this stage Dr. Brander and the Pleadfer left the room at my request, and the conversation between the prisoner and myself pro- ceeded : — " I am quite convinced in my own mind that you know how your child died, and unless you explain to me the cause of the child's death, I shall find it extremly difficult to defend you at the trial." " I found my child dead on my return from the field. I .don't know how she died. Do as you like, but I know nothing." '* Muluk Chand ! I believe you did not intentionally kill your child; but I cannot believe you know nothing. If you decline to tell me the truth, you make it almost impossible for me to defend you, and you run the risk of being hanged." " I know nothing." " Never mind how your child was killed. I am certain that the wound on her body was inflicted after death, and you must know all about it." [At this the prisoner looked confused and agitated, and caught ho]d of my feet.] ' "What makes you say the wound was caused after dcaili ?" " I am sure it was." "Have you he.ird it from Umesh Clhazce, my brother-in-law?" " I never heard of him. But what does he know?" "Well, sir, as you know all about the wound, if you will excuse me, I will tell you everything. 'Ihat man, Umesh (Ihazec, is the L cause of cW my troubles. He made the wound, and advised me to say that, it was a snake-bite. When we discovered that my child Nekjan was dead, and did not know how to account for her death, my brother- 90 in-law, Umesh (ihazee, brought his small knife and made the wound, but n_o blood came out of it, as the child was then dead." " What about the spear? Was that never used?'' " No, the spear was never thought of until the police got r?y child to accuse me of niurder." " Did not your child accuse you when your wife returned home and before the police came?" ♦ "All that is utterly untrue. I was not accused before Thursday night. When Ram Das Jemadar came on Wednesday, he made Umesh phazee dig the floor of my house in the hope of getting the snake. My child, Golak, was there then, and so was my wife. The inspector subsequently sent for my wife and child, and told them I had myself confessed, and got them to say what he liked. I met my wife cne day, as I was being taken to the Magistrate's Court, and sh'e cried out — 'Is it true you have admitted having killed Nekjan ?' I replied — ' No, it is all false '.'' I then said — " I am glad you have told me all about the wound. But why did Umesh Ghazee make it so big ? '' " It was very slight at first, but it was subsequently enlarged by the police while the corpse was being carried to Bongong. They wanted Rs. 30 from me, but I had not so much to give them." It will thus be seen that when I defended the accused at Alipur, at the second trial, I had no information whatever regarding the cause of the child's death, but I felt convinced in my own mind that the case was not one of murder, and that the prisoner probably bad not ventured to disclose the whole truth. I was, however^, greatty relieved to find that I had elicited during the interview one most valuable piece of information, which showed that the theory I had put forward before the High Court was perfectly correct, viz., tfthat the wound on the deceased child had been fabricated after H death. This fac't^once established, the conclusion became irresis- tible that the medical evidence in the case could no*! b^ depended upon, as it could throw no light whatever on the cause of the cbild'^ death. The information regarding the digging of the floor by Umesh 91 Ghazee, under the orders of the pohce, appeared to be of the utmost importance, as nothing had transpired regarding this matter at.'the first trial. The fact that at the second trial Umesh Ghazee's wife, Dhiru, fainted, or pretended to faint, whdh cross-examined about the part her own husband had played in the case, was full of signi- ficance to those who knew the secret at the time ; but to the Judge, the Jury, and to the public at large her conduct in the witness-box seemed to have no special meaning.* On the morning of the 25th July, 1882, the day after the acquittal of Muluk Chand Chaukidar, his daughter, Golak Mani, accompanied by her mother, c ame to see him in mv house, and I had then the following conversation with the child : — " Who killed your sister ? " » No answer. Question repeated. The girl, with tears in her eyes — " I don't know ". " Did you not see your father kill her ? " " No. I was asleej) ; and I know nothing." " Hut you said in Court only the other day that you saw your father kiM her ? " The child, crying — " I was taught to say that ". " Who taught you ? '' *' Dwarik Constable showed me a sword, and said — ' If you do not say that your father killed your sister with his spear, 1 will cutofiT yoflr head with this sword ; but if you say that in Court, your father will be released and will come home'; I therefore agreed to say that." " }3ut what made y/u «ay that, even after you heard that your father was going to be hanged ? "' "My mother and {he (faro^t^a (police inspector) sai up and examining my neighbours, the head-constable sent the \ cospse in charge of Dwarik Constable and some villagers, and I went 13 with them. Before starting. Sham Mehtar and other neighbours •>! told me that if I gave a few rupees to the police there would be no ; further trouble, 'i offered Rs. 6, but the police wanted ?.s. 30. At ^ last I borrowed Rs. 16, which Sham Mehtar took from me to give the i *f * It is popularly believed that a snake-bite in a vital part of the body caus instant insensibility. — ^T. G. ' ^ \ J 95 police. When taking the corpse to Bongong, we halted on the banks of the Ichamati at a place called Potkhali, where Dwarik Con- stable told me — ' You sola* pay for our breakfast; you have given me n jthing, and unless you pay, you will get into^ trouble '. I said I had already paid Rs. i6. Dwarik said he had not got it, and that I must go and get some money. From Potkhali I went back .and brought a couple of rupees. On my return, I saw the constable sitting by •, the side of the corpse examining the wound, which I saw had 'increased in size. I asked — 'Who has done this?' The ferryman who was there said that the constable had been inserting* t'rfe stump of an indigo plant into the wound. On hearing this, the constable got angry and threatened to beat the ferryman, saying — ' Sala, can ypu say you have seen me do it ?' The ferryman got frightened and said he had not seen it. "After the examination of the body by the doctor, the police arrested me at Bongong, and sent for my wife and daughter. In the lock-up at night, I was beaten by the constables and told to confess. Thiy brought date thorns and pierced them into the quick of my nails [showing four or five fingers witji nails injured]. The inspector, accompanied by another daroga whom I don't know, came and said — 'You better confess. Your daughter and wife are accusing you.' In spite of the torture, I declined to say anything. The constables then said — ' If you did not do it, why do you not accuse Kadam Ali Fakir?' I declined to accuse him." Q. — "What made you conceal the truth at the beginning? If you had come out with the truth at once, nothing would have happened to you." A. — " I am an ignof'ant man, and I thought no one would beyevc mc, and that the police would accuse me pf murder even if I told the truth."' Q. — " But what made you conceal all this whvin I ]>rcssed you in the jail to tell me the truth ?" A.--" I then thought you woulc' decline to defend me if I told * A term of abuse. 96 s ' the truth. Sir, I ask your forgiveness for it." [Saying this, he began to weep.] Q- — "How do you account for the conduct of your wife? Is there any reason why she should have wished to get you hanged?" A. — " I have no reason to suspect that she is unfaithful to mh, but she was very jealous, and suspected me of undue familiarity with . the wife of Kadam All Fakir. On returning home and finding t\^^ child dead, she said to me — ' I know you want to live with the Fakir's wife, and that is why you have done this. I will not give you rice any more. I said — ' I shall not have to eat rice cooked by you any more'." Q. — "Did you tell her on her return what had happened?" A. — I told no one except Umesh Ghazee. He might have told his wife Dhiru. My daughter Golak was asleep till daylight and saw w nothing. Dhiru, Haru, and my wife all gave false evidence through f fear of the police." Q. — " Can you exjDlain the conduct of your wife in offering sJiinii* when you were sentenced to death ?" A — "The villagers all told her that she herself would get into trouble if the charge against me failed, and she says the offering was by Kadam Ali Fakir, at whose request she joined in it." M. CHOSE. * Sweets offered by way of thanks. THE ABERDEEN VNIVERSITY PRESS. k UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 35m-8,'71(P634784)-C-120