The child's silver ornaments were found upon him; he at once confessed that he had strangled the infant, and pointed out the spot where he had buried the body. Upon close search, however, nothing could be found there except the fragment of bone described and the ghoonsee, or waist-string, which the child had worn. A place near a tank was also pointed. out by the prisoner, in which the child's jacket was found concealed. After confessing to the police, and repeating every circumstance of his crime before the Magistrate, the prisoner retracted his avowal: and, in the absence of any evidence beyond that afforded by the splinter of bone, (which might have been brought by dogs or jackals from a distance), it appeared questionable whether the prisoner might not have committed the not by any means unfrequent crime of stealing the child, and selling her, after having stripped her of her clothes and ornaments in the place indicated. After examining the splinter of bone, I expressed my belief, that the body had been devoured by wild animals; but told the Darogah that diligent search must still be made for the skull, which would, doubtless, be discovered. I was convinced that small animals, like jackals, could do no more than gnaw the perfectly ossified skull of a child of that age, and roll it from place to place. The Darogah failing to make any further discovery, I accompanied the Magistrate to the scene of the alleged crime, a very distant solitary spot, on the bank of a narrow, but deep and rapid marsh stream, by which any fragments of the body might have been carried down towards the river. As, however, it appeared unlikely that the jackals would resign any portion of their prey, I still maintained confidently that the skull must be found, probably among the thickets of wild pine-apple with which the ground was covered. Shortly after this, the skull of child was brought to me by the police; it was recent, cor a responded with the age of the missing child, and had, evidently, been gnawed by small wild animals, the marks of whose teeth traversed the calvarium in every direction. Still, again, this prompt discovery of the skull, upon my reiterated assertion that it must be forthcoming, after the ground had been searched again and again for nearly a week by the whole posse comitatus, was somewhat startling; and the suspicion obtruded itself-have the police been so much impressed with the confidence of my assertion, that some burkundauze, failing to discover the head, and feeling himself unpleasantly responsible to the Darogah, has endeavoured to resolve the difficulty by borrowing a credible head from one of the many bodies daily floating down the adjacent river? The skull was shown to the child's father, who asserted that he could identify it by the shape of the front teeth; but still it was questionable whether, in his anxiety to convict the man who was known to have kidnapped his child, he would have hesitated to identify any skull that might have been produced.* When tried, the prisoner recalled his confession, and pleaded "not guilty." The sessions judge, however, sentenced him to death, and the judges of the superior court confirmed the decision, recording their opinion that "the corpus delicti being proved, non-recognition should not absolutely and invariably be ruled to bar capital punishment. Each case should be tried with reference to the circumstances, and to the facts established." The prisoner suffered the last penalty of the law. His case affords an illus tration of those, doubtless generally unjust, still by no means useless questionings, which should scarcely be discouraged during a thorough sifting of these obscure cases in India. *This recognition of the skull appears sessions court; as the judge's report says tion of the corpse." 66 not to have been admitted at the there is no satisfactory recogni MEDICAL EVIDENCE. In ordinary cases of assault, the Civil Surgeon's written statement, in reply to the Magistrate's letter of inquiry, is received as evidence. The Regulation, however, directs that,— In cases of murder, or wounding, endangering life, when the body or wound may have been inspected by the Civil Surgeon, the deposition of the Surgeon should be invariably taken on oath, whether before the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge.--Circular Order, No. 54, para. 7, 16th July 1830; Circular Order, No. 42, 1st May 1840. Something farther is, however, necessary to render such depositions valid as evidence in the Sessions Courts. In May 1853, a case of murder was tried at Mynpoorie, in which the Sessions Judge apprehended that, although the Civil Surgeon had left the station on leave for Europe before the trial, that officer's depositions having been taken on oath, before the Magistrate in accordance with Circular No. 42, of 1st May 1840-he was at liberty to refer to those depositions as evidence which, under any legal view whatever, it would be impossible to ignore. He, however, abstained from placing the examination of the Civil Surgeon before the Magistrate on the record of his Court. It was ruled by the Superior Court that, although the Circular Order quoted by the Sessions Judge directs that the examinations of Medical Officers in the Magistrates' Courts shall be taken on oath, in order to their being available on the trial,—in the event of the unavoidable absence of the officers making them, it is * In a case tried at Bareilly, in January 1854, the Court observed that the mere occupation of the Civil Surgeon on other duty, and the consequent nonattendance at the trial, by no means justified the procedure here adopted of placing his foujdaree deposition on the record of trial, after causing it to be attested by the subscribing witnesses; such a course is only allowed in the “ unavoidable absence," of the Surgeon, under Circular Order, dated 1st May 1840, (W. P.) as explained by Construction No. 1280.-Nizamut Adawlut Reports, N. W. P., 30th January 1854. necessary that such examinations should be proved, on the trial, in the usual manner, in conformity to the injunction contained in the Circular Orders of the 16th July 1830; otherwise, they cannot be accepted as proof against the accused. This precaution not having been observed in the present instance, the deposition of the Medical Officer was held by the Court not to be, in its existing state, admissible as evidence against the prisoner.* A similar ruling was adhered to by the Court in a case tried at Cawnpore in 1852, where the Sessions Judge had placed on the record of his Court an original letter from the Civil Surgeon, and other papers which, in their then form, were inadmissible as proof; and again, in a case tried at Bareilly in the same year, where the statement on oath of the Civil Surgeon, not having been duly attested and proved, was ignored by the higher Court.† The Medical Officer's evidence must be taken in full and de novo in the Sessions Court. The Superior Court N. W. P. ruled, in 1854, in a case where the Sessions Judge, in examining the Civil Surgeon, had not called on him to repeat seriatim his previous deposition in the Magistrate's Court, but had allowed him to read that document, and had asked him if the replies therein recorded contained the facts of the case,—that this was not the proper mode of conducting an examination. The Civil Surgeon should, like any other witness, have been directed to state, de novo, all the circumstances, to the best of his recollection, referring to any notes he might have to refresh his memory.‡ Again-" The evidence of the Civil Surgeon should have * Nizamut Adawlut Reports, N. W. P., of 31st May 1853. † Nizamut Adawlut Reports, N. W. P., of 23rd June and 29th November 1852. Nizamut Adawlut Reports, 4th April 1854. Again, Ibid, 7th April 1854. been taken in detail; a mere attestation on oath of a written report, made on inspecting the corpse, is not sufficient, and would imply a want of proper attention on the part of the Sessions Judge, to his duty of elucidating by questions the exact nature of the wounds causing death, and of the weapon with which they were apparently inflicted.* In cases which have come under the immediate notice only of a native doctor or Sub-Assistant Surgeon, the Civil Surgeon may be called upon for an opinion upon the evidence of the subordinate Medical Officer. At Moradabad, in 1854, the Sessions Judge was required by the Superior Court to obtain the evidence on trial of the Civil Assistant Surgeon as to the cause of death. They directed that the evidence of the Sub-Assistant Surgeon should be read over to the Civil Assistant Surgeon, and such other questions put to the former as the latter might suggest, with a view to elicit more fully the symptoms apparent on the post mortem examination; the opinion of the Civil Assistant Surgeon should then be taken on oath as to the cause of death to be inferred from the symptoms described; and the degree of confidence between mere suspicion and certainty with which the deponent's opinion on the subject might be formed, should be particularly noted.† Identification of Articles submitted to the Medical Officer for Examination.-In commenting upon the record of a case tried at Bareilly, the Judges of the higher Court ruled that "In taking the examination of the Civil Surgeon, the Additional Sessions Judge should have shown him the cap and dhotee, on which he deposed to having observed spots of blood, and have obtained identification of the same; the * Nizamut Adawlut Reports, N. W. P., 11th November 1854. |