BAWLA MURDER CASE-1925
 
    No case within the memory of the present generation has created greater stir in the city of Bombay than the Bawla Murder Case in 1925.  The facts of the case read like a chapter from a romance.  It all happened suddenly within a short space of time a matter of minutes on the evening of the 12th of January 1925, in a favourite and frequented promenade, at a beauty spot of Bombay, viz., the Hanging Gardens on Malabar Hill.  It was at the tranquil and peaceful hour of the evening, at about 7-25 or 7-30 when there was still twilight, and many people were walking along the road taking the air.   There was also a brisk vehicular traffic on the road.  A motor-car, containing, besides the driver and the cleaner, two men and a woman, drove up Gibbs Road from Kemp's Corner, towards the Hanging Gardens at the top of Malabar Hill.  Almost immediately thereafter another car, a red Maxwell, containing six or seven men drove up, and deliberately bumped into the first car.  Both the cars came to a stop.  The inmates of the red Maxwell jumped out shouting abuses at one of the men and the woman in the other car.  After jumping out, they surrounded the first car on both sides, two or three men mounting the foot-boards on either side.  The first car belonged to one Abdul Kadar Bawla, a wealthy businessman of Bombay.  The other man was his manager named Mathew.
 
    The woman in Bawla's car was Mumtaz Begum, a beautiful Muslim dancing girl, who had been in the keeping of the Maharaja of lndore for about 10 years, until sometime before the incident of 12th January 1925.  According to her story, she was apparently fed up with her life in the princely harem at Indore; and had managed a few months back to get away from her gilded cage.  After sundry stays at Delhi, Nagpur, and other places, she ultimately found a harbour, a home, and an unofficial husband in Abdul Kadar Bawla.  At the time of the murder, she had been living with Bawla as his mistress.  This escapade of the girl had apparently caused fierce resentment in high quarters at Indore, as an affront to the dignity of her quondam princely patron.  From the evidence in the case, it transpired that a conspiracy was formed to avenge this slur on the dignity of the Durbar; and to reclaim, if possible, or punish the run-away Helen of Indore.  Her whereabouts and movements in Bombay were traced; and a gang of nine or ten hirelings and hangers-on of the Durbar proceeded to Bombay to teach an unforgettable lesson to the fair but fickle fugitive and her present protector, for meddling with the private affairs of a princely house.  The red Maxwell contained this gang of desperate ruffians, determined to kidnap the girl by force.  On the evening of the 12th of January this gang apparently tracked down their intended victims, pursued them on their journey up Malabar Hill, and overtook the car near the Hanging Gardens.  Several members of the gang were armed with pistols, knives, and a kukri.  As soon as the cars had come to a standstill, and the men had jumped out from the red Maxwell and surrounded Bawla's car, they at first tried to drag Mumtaz from the side of Bawla.  On her resisting this attempt, and crying out for help, and on Bawla trying to shield her and prevent her from being carried away, one of the gang slashed at the girl's face with a knife, inflicting four injuries on her face, which partially disfigured her.  Simultaneously, more than one shot was fired at Bawla.  Bawla was seriously wounded and died shortly after.  In fact, according to the evidence of Mumtaz, one of the men who had boarded Bawla's car aimed and fired a pistol at him almost immediately after mounting the footboard.
 
    As luck would have it, while this amazing outrage was at its height, another car drove up from behind; and its inmates hearing the shots and the woman's screams and cries for help, stopped their car, jumped out, and rushed to their rescue. This car was occupied by three Englishmen all military officers: Lt. Saegert, who was driving the car, and by his side were sitting two of his military comrades, Lt. Batley and Lt. Stephen. Saegert immediately threw himself into the thick of the fight, grappled with the miscreants, and succeeded in rescuing the girl from the clutches of her assailants; and although more than one shot was fired at him and he was wounded in three or four places on his body, he managed to carry Mumtaz to his own car.  With the assistance of his comrades, Lts. Batley and Stephen, Saegert overpowered two or three of the assailants, and snatched the murderous weapons out of their hands.  With the assistance of another English military officer, Col. Vickery, who also drove up shortly after, these gallant men succeeded in securing one or two of the assailants and handing them over to the police, who soon arrived on the scene.  Lt. Saegert, besides being struck with bullets, was also attacked during the scuffle with a knife, which inflicted a deep wound on his shoulder.  One or more of the assailants had also sustained injuries mainly with a golf stick which Lt. Saegert had used both for attack and defence.
 
    There is no doubt that but for the timely arrival of these gallant soldiers on the scene, the gang would have succeeded in carrying off the girl to Indore, and making good their own escape out of British India.  The arrival of the soldiers at the spot was accidental, and indeed providential.  They had been to play golf at the Willingdon Club, and were returning to their barracks at Colaba.  They drove down Fedder Road from the Club; and quite accidentally at Kemp's Corner Lt. Saegert, who was at the wheel, instead of taking the lower Hughes Road-which would be the usual road-by mistake took the upper Gibbs Road, and reached the scene of the crime in the nick of time.
 
    In this state of things, nine men were put up for trial before the Criminal Sessions of the Bombay High Court in May 1925.  In substance, they were charged with being members of a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Mumtaz Begum out of British India, for causing her grievous hurt in the attempt to kidnap, and with the murder of Bawla.  They were tried before Mr. Justice Crump and a special jury.  The Advocate-General, J. B. Kanga, with Kenneth Kemp, appeared for the prosecution.  The several accused persons were defended, among others, by J. M. Sen Gupta of the Calcutta Bar, S. G. Velinkar, and Jinnah.  The case was in a sense difficult and complicated, in view of the number of accused persons, the number and nature of the charges, the difficulty with laymen of clearly comprehending the concept and legal incidents of a conspiracy, and of the vicarious liability of all persons concerned in a conspiracy for the violent acts of one or more members thereof in carrying out the common object of the conspirators.  The trial took several days and drew large crowds of spectators to the High Court.
 
    The main witnesses for the prosecution were the three military officers, who, besides being eye-witnesses of the drama, were actually participants in the affair.  There was other voluminous evidence led, including some documents, to prove the development and various stages of the conspiracy, and the part played by each of the persons charged in carrying it out.  Normally, when a complex drama, with fifteen or twenty persons taking active part in it, is enacted within a short space of time, it is not quite easy for even eye-witnesses and the actors, to give a clear and connected account of what actually occurred afterwards.  There would be glaring discrepancies in the versions of different witnesses, and the jury in such cases at times has a rather confused and perplexing picture of the crime.  Here again the military men played a vital part.  Their military training taught them to keep a cool head, a steady hand, and an observant eye, in the thick of a fight or scuffle in which several persons were engaged.  The testimony of Lts. Saegert, Batley and Stephen, and to a lesser extent of Col. Vickery, went a long way to prove the charges against at least six out of the nine accused; and there is little doubt that they were rightly convicted.  In the face of this evidence, along with the other evidence relating to the conspiracy, the defence had from the first an uphill-indeed almost a hopeless task.  They could hardly make out any plausible or even credible defence.  As regards the murder of Bawla, there was nothing beyond a vague suggestion that he carried a pistol, fired it first, and that the accused fired in self-defence.  Bawla no doubt had a licence to keep a revolver; and a revolver belonging to him was produced; but there was no evidence that he carried any pistol or revolver at the time of the occurrence.  Further, the bullets extracted from the body of the unfortunate man, as well as from the wounds of Lt. Sa egert, together with other bullets and cartridges found on the scene of the offence, proved conclusively that none of the bullets had been fired from the revolver belonging to Baw1a.   They were all fired from the two pistols taken from the assailants.
 
    As regards M umtaz, the defence suggested was that she was willing to go to Indore, and Bawla officiously interfered and prevented her.  This too was a feeble and forlorn plea.  Apart from anything else, it was completely belied by her frantic cries and screams for help, and the injuries that were inflicted upon her face.  There was further the evidence of a well known criminal lawyer of the time, Mr. Nariman, who had deposed that some months prior to the attempt to kidnap her, he had been consulted by Mumtaz Begum; and in the course of the consultation, she had told him that she would  "rather drown herself in the sea than go back to Indore."
 
    Apart from the clear, direct, and unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution, the jury was assisted in forming a clear picture of the crime and of the legal aspects of the case, by the masterly summing-up of Mr. Justice Crump.  This summing-up stands in a class by itself in the history of the Bombay High Court.  It covers 145 typed folio pages.  The first 40 pages are devoted to preliminary observations as regards the general aspects of a criminal trial, the relative functions of judge and jury; and indicating the caution and the safeguards imposed by law, which the jury has to bear in mind, in order to arrive at the right verdict.  The judge pointed out and explained the various sections of the Penal Code under which the different accused were charged, the legal requirements which were necessary to prove the charges, and expounded the legal position with an elaboration, meticulous care, and analytical precision which left little to be desired.  Perhaps, there was over-elaboration of the legal position; but as the judge pointed out, it is safer to repeat things too often than to leave anything unsaid.  He also pointed out that in a criminal trial with a number of witnesses who look at or are concerned in an occurrence from various standpoints, minor discrepancies are bound to occur; and in fact, these discrepancies prove the general truth of the evidence; the safe practical rule being to look for substantial agreement on the main facts with circumstantial variations.  It was indeed a model charge; and it is said that the Chief Justice, Sir Norman Macleod, was so much impressed with the clearness, completeness and cogency of this charge, that printed copies of it were made and ordered to be distributed among Sessions Judges in the mofussil.
 
    When sometime later Sir John Simon (who appeared for the appellants before the Privy Council) visited India at the invitation of Lord Reading, the Viceroy (they were personal friends), the Bombay Bar Association held a reception in his honour at the Bar Gymkhana.  Mr. Justice Crump was among the guests; and I remember Sir John Simon complimenting him upon his admirable charge to the jury in this case, saying: "We tried very hard to pick holes in it, but failed."
 
    The jury after very careful and anxious deliberation returned the following verdict: They found accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 unanimously guilty of all charges on which they were tried, with the exception of the second and the fourth charge.  They found accused No.4 guilty by 8: 1 upon the same charges, and accused No.7 by a majority of 7 : 2.  They found accused Nos. 6 and 8 unanimously not guilty.  Mr. Justice Crump accepted the verdict and acquitted and discharged accused Nos. 6 and 8.  As regards accused Nos. 1, 2, 3,4, 5 and 7, they were found guilty of murder; and accused No.9 was found guilty of abetment of murder apart from the charges of conspiracy.  In the judge's view, the case against accused Nos. 3, 4 and 7 stood upon a different footing from accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5; and he was of the view that the lesser penalty for murder prescribed by the law was adequate in their case.  He accordingly sentenced accused No.3 Bahadurshah Mahomedshah, accused No.4 Akbarshah Mahomedshah, and accused No.7 Abdul Latif Moyuddin to transportation for life.  As regards the remaining three accused, Nos. 1, 2 and 5, who had been found guilty of murder, he regretted that he could not see his way to pass the lesser sentence.  Accordingly accused No.1 Shafi Ahmed Nabi Ahmed, accused No.2 Pushpasheel Balvantrao Ponde, and accused No.5 Shamrao Revaji Dighe were sentenced to death.  There remained the verdict against accused No.9 Sardar Anandrao Gangaram Phanse.  He was found by the jury guilty, firstly of the offence of conspiracy to kidnap Mumtaz from British India; he was also found guilty of abetment of murder.  On this verdict, he would be liable to capital punishment; but the judge took into consideration the fact that he was remote from the scene of the actual murder; and it was only by the application of sec. 111 of the Penal Code that he was found guilty of abetment of murder.  Accordingly, he sentenced Phanse to undergo transportation for life.
 
    As regards this accused Phanse, his counsel Jinnah made a strong plea for a lesser punishment.  The judge was sympathetic; and the Advocate-General also did not oppose the plea; but in law, for murder or abetment of murder, there were only two punishments prescribed-death or transportation for life.  In that state of the law, the judge found himself helpless to do anything.  It would seem from some observations which Mr. Justice Crump let fall, that he was not quite satisfied with the verdict of the jury as regards their finding Phanse guilty of abetment of murder.  For instance, in passing sentence, he observed, "I am not concerned, and it is no province of mine to indicate any dissent from the verdict " the fact being that the judge had no discretion to dissent from or disregard a unanimous verdict of the jury.  It was binding upon him.  The utmost that could be done was to recommend to the executive government, that they might in their discretion reduce or remit the sentence.
 
    An application for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council was made on behalf of the convicted persons.  They engaged one of the ablest and most distinguished lawyers of the time, Sir John Simon.  Two points were taken before the Judicial Committee: (1) the great prejudice created against the accused persons in Bombay by reason of the case having been discussed and commented upon by various local newspapers in Bombay prior to the trial. In order to ensure a fair trial and an unprejudiced jury, the Governor-Genera] ought to have transferred the case under s. 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code from Bombay to some other jurisdiction, where the atmosphere was free from local excitement and prejudice. The second point taken was that the judge's charge to the jurors did not adequately bring home to them that abetment of murder could not be properly and legitimately inferred from a mere conspiracy to kidnap, unless the natural and inevitable consequence of an attempt to kidnap was murder.  Their Lordships of the Privy Council dismissed the application, observing that even in an appeal, ordinarily the Board did not review or interfere with the course of criminal proceedings, unless it was shown that, by a disregard of the forms of legal process, or by violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise, grave and substantial injustice had been done to the persons convicted.  Referring to the first ground taken before them, viz., that the refusal of the Governor-General to transfer the case from Bombay was an adequate ground for admitting the appeal, Their Lordships remarked that the Governor-General was the best and the only person who could form a proper judgment on the matter, he having all the advantages of being in the country and of judging the real state of public feeling.   To suggest that the refusal of the authorities in India to transfer the case from one jurisdiction to another amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice, was nothing less than preposterous.  As regards the second ground, they observed that even if they were a court of criminal appeal, it would be very difficult to say that the learned judge's charge to the jury was inadequate; but at any rate, at the stage at which they were for the time being, it was impossible to say that the inadequacy or otherwise of the charge amounted to a disregard of the forms of legal process, or violation of the principles of natural justice.  In the result the application was dismissed.
 
    One of the culprits sentenced to death, Pushpasheel Balvantrao Ponde (accused No.2), went raving mad soon after the sentence of death was passed upon him; and I believe, in that state of things, he was kept indefinitely in penal custody; while the other two accused Shafi Ahmed Nabi Ahmed and Shamrao Revaji Dighe were hanged.
 
    Thus ended this extraordinary case; but its interest and the memories of the crime and of the trial lingered long in Bombay, after the curtain had fallen on the trial.  The public interest and agitation was kept alive for a long time after by an assiduous press, which found an inexhaustible mine of morbid material in the strange story of felony, blood, romance, revenge and rescue.
 
    The Bombay press indeed ran amock over the case with its tinge of romance and gallantry, with the shadow of a ruling prince in the background.  For days together after the incidents of the 12th January 1925, the morning and evening papers of Bombay were full of the Bawla case, recounting all sorts of stories, exploring and raking up the past history, and speculating on the future prospects of the tragic heroine of this bloody drama.  Long after poor Bawla was dead, two of his murderers hanged, and one of his murderers had gone raving mad and was shut up indefinitely in penal custody, the sleuths and harpies of the press pursued Mumtaz, prying into her private life, and dogging her movements at every step and every spot where she happened to travel.  Such is the persistent and pernicious power of modern journalism.
 
* * * * *