CYRIL BERTRAM PLUCKNETT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application made on behalf of Cyril Bertram Plucknett for leave to appeal to a Bench of this Court from a conviction for murder recorded against him in the Sessions of this Court on 16 June and a sentence of death for the offence of murder passed upon him on that date. The accused was tried before Sen J. and a jury of nine, five of whom were Europeans and four Indians. The applicant is described as an Anglo-Indian. He makes his application under Section 449, Criminal P. C. The history of the matter is this. On 2 May, this year the applicant was living in a room with a bath-room attached in a block of buildings at 27-B Central Avenue. At about ten o clock that night the durwan, in the course of his rounds, noticed the door of the room of the applicant open and the light on. He went in and found there the body of a man afterwards identified as that of Edward Gordon Jones who was also an Anglo-Indian. Jones was still alive, but there were marks of blood on his person; he was unconscious. The durwan, after receiving instructions from his employer, proceeded to the thana and gave information to the officer on duty there that one Anglo-Indian man was lying on the floor of Eoom No. 1-B of 27-B Central Avenue, with blood marks on his person. The report in the diary is that he did not know what was-the matter. The report further is that Sub-Inspector Maitra left on enquiry. The report is signed by Sub-Inspector Maitra and in the margin is the signature of the durwan Mohamed Syeed written in Nagri script. The police visited the room in question. They found there Jones in an unconscious condition battered about the head. Jones was taken to the hospital where he died at half past six the next morning. The applicant was not seen in those rooms then, but he surrendered at about 12-30 the next day to a policeman at Howrah Bridge. The applicant was charged with causing the death of Jones before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. On 3 June the Chief Presidency Magistrate committed the applicant to take his trial at the Sessions of this Court. On the same day the mother of the applicant swore an affidavit which was presented to the Chief Presidency Magistrate to this effect: I was married to Edwin Coomb Pluoknett, deceased, in 1889. Mr. Plucknett was an Englishman, born in Essex, England. Cyril Plucknett, (i.e. the applicant) is my son.

(2.) No further steps consequent upon that, affidavit were taken by or on behalf of the applicant before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. On 13 June the applicant was put up for trial in the Sessions of this Court before Sen, J. No application was made by the applicant or on his behalf to the Court that he should be tried under any of the provisions which are applicable to cases where there may be a racial conflict. The applicant was defended by Mr. J.P. Mitter, Barrister, and Mr. Mitter challenged various members of the jury-both European and Indian. Counsel for the Crown also challenged the jurymen. Eventually a jury was provided of which five members were Europeans and four Indians. The trial lasted from June 13 to June 16. There were three charges against the applicant: (1) murder (2) culpable homicide not amounting to murder and (3) voluntarily causing grievous bodily hurt. They were all in respect of the death of Jones. On 16 June the jury unanimously found the applicant guilty of murder and the Judge sentenced the applicant to death. The trial in the Sessions Court was under the provisions of the Letters Patent of 1865. 01. 25 of the Letters Patent provides: There shall be no appeal to this Court from any sentence or order passed or made in any criminal trial before the Courts of Original Criminal Jurisdiction, which may be constituted by one or more Judges of the High Court. But it shall be at the discretion of any such Court to reserve any point or points of law for the opinion of the High Court.

(3.) Clause 26 of the Letters Patent provides: On such point or points of law being so reserved as aforesaid, or on its being certified by the said Advocate-General, that in his judgment there is an error in the decision of a point or points of law decided by the Court of original criminal jurisdiction, or that a point or points of law which has or have been decided by the said Court should be further considered, the said High Court shall have full power and authority to review the case or such part of it as may be necessary, and finally determine such point or points of law, and thereupon to alter the sentence passed by the Court of original jurisdiction, and to pass such judgment and sentence as to the said High Court shall seem right.