Enclosures of letter to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India, No.11, dated 15 January 1875: Nos. 3 to 45 of Abstract of Contents, from the Officiating Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Fort William [‎84v] (68/100)

The evidence however upon which the complicity of the Gaekwar in the
attempt to poison Colonel Phayre mainly if not exclusively rests, is that of
the Havildar Custodian; police sergeant; jail or prison guard. Rowjee and the Jemadar Nursoo. The statement of Rowjee was
made after promise of pardon and is therefore open to suspicion. But when
Nursoo made his statement, no such hopes were held out to him and he was in
ignorance of what Rowjee had said. More than this he had been expressly in
formed by yourself that he would not be pardoned; and his ignorance of any
plot except that in which he was himself concerned, and notably of the intrigue
with the ayah, which he nowhere mentions, may, I think, be taken to support
his accuracy in regard to the transactions as to which he speaks. Reading the
two statements of Rowjee and Nursoo together in the light of these considera
tions it is impossible not to be struck with their correspondence in all material
particulars; and the impression produced on my mind is that their story is
true.
Of course these men are accomplices one of the other, and it is a well
known rule of English practice that it is not safe to act on the uncorroborated
testimoney of an accomplice and that one accomplice cannot directly corro
borate another. But by Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act it is provided
that a conviction is not illegal because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice.
From the nature of the case independent corroborative testimony as to
the Gaekwar's connivance in the scheme to poison Colonel Phayre is unattain
able. All who were privy to the scheme were accomplices in it. Whether
Yeshwunt Rao and Salam, when put on their trial will admit the truth of the
statements made by Rowjee and Nursoo cannot be known, but were the parties
to the nefarious plot merely private individuals, I should have no hesitation in
pronouncing the evidence already recorded sufficient to warrant a conviction.
I presume however that the case, so far as the Gaekwar is concerned, will be
dealt with politically. There is no tribunal but the executive Government before
which a Soveregin Prince can be arraigned for such an offence as is here laid to
his charge, and I conceive it is unnecessary for me to say more than I have done in
reference to the evidence so far as it affects His Highness.
With regard to Yeshwunt Rao, Salam, and Nursoo, the offence for which
they should be tried is abetment of an attempt to murder by poison, under
Sections 107 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon their trial the evidence
of the ayah. Sheikh Kureem, Karbhai Ameer Sing, Fyzoo Ramzan and Jugga
will be admissible to prove the connection of Yeshwunt Rao and Salam with
the earlier stage of the conspiracy. Against the Jemadar Nursoo no evidence
beyond his own confession will be necessary. When convicted he may be called
as a withness against his co-defendant.
The only defence which it seems to me could be set up by any of the
parties implicated is that this is a " Police case;" that the witnesses have been
tutored by the Police, and are merely saying what they have been told to say.
Your own acquaintance with the history of this enquiry, and with the manner
in which Mr. Souter and his Assistants have pursued their investigation, will
supply the best answer to any suggestion of this kind. Indeed to my mind
one of the strongest proofs of the truth of the story told by the witnesses is
furnished by a study of the circumstances under which the various statements
were made, and of the minor incidents by which the progress of the enquiry
was characterized.
No. 1479, dated Baroda, 29th December 1874.
From— Col. Sir Lewis Felly, K.C.S.I., Agent, Governor-General, and Special
Commissioner, Baroda,
To— Hon^ble A. Scoble , Advocate-General, Bombay.
I had the honor this morning of transmitting to you the subjoined
telegram :—
" Can you receive Mr. Souter to-morrow morning on important business.
If so, kindly have note specifying time awaiting his arrival at his house."
e pd .—j. d. g.
60