vol. vii.
s 2
115
with a view to shoot a police constable who
had been placed on guard over the prisoner's
hut. He was taken to the quarter-guard
by order of the Subadar, and it was on his
way thither that he made this assignation
with Bhima, who was conducting him. At
about 11 P.M. he got away from the quarter
-
guard under a false pretext and met Bhima as
they had previously arranged. Then he went
into the hut of another sepoy who was absent,
or whom he thought to be absent, and stole from
it a rifle and cartridges. He loaded the rifle
and fired at the policeman, and he wounded him
severely on the hand. The prisoner then ran
away. As he was retiring, the rifle was di
s -
charged a second time. This implies that it had
been reloaded, even if we accept the prisoner's
statement that it went off accidentally. To this
account the prisoner adds that he was instigated
by Bhima after the latter had given him some
sherbet, from the effects of which he says
he felt intoxicated. He thought he had been
drugged. But the sherbet was drunk even
before he was taken to the Subadar's. The
alleged intoxication did not prevent his making
the appointment with Bhima as he was taken
from the Subadar's to the quarter-guard. Nor
did it prevent his bearing the appointment in
mind and contriving by a false pretext to keep
it. It is impossible therefore to suppose,
whether a drug had been administered to him or
not, that he was so affected by it as to prevent
his knowing what he was about or the ordinary
consequences of his acts. He must, especially
as a soldier, have known that to fire a bullet at
the policeman was an act so imminently dan-
-
gerous that, if it took effect, it would in all pro
-
bability immediately or mediately cause death.
Fortunately it did not cause death, but it did
cause hurt. Had death been caused, the prisoner
would undoubtedly have been punishable for mur-
-
der. As it is, he is, for the attempt carried so
nearly to completion, subject to punishment under
the second part of paragraph I of section 301 of
the Indian Penal Code. The crime he has com-
mitted is one of the gravest character, since
military lawlessness is the most serious of dan-
gers to society. We must therefore sentence
the prisoner to be transported for seven (7) years,
which sentence will be concurrent with that which
he is already undergoing under the sentence of a
Court Martial.
52. Evidence of MR. H. SCANNELL, Superintendent, Great Indian Peninsula Railway
Police, Poona.
Oral evidence.
Question 1.-I have been Superintendent of
G r e a t I n d i a n P e n i n s u l a R a i l w a y P o l i c e f o r t w o
years and a half and have twice acted as Inspector
General of Police, for a year and quarter alt
o -
gether. I have been twenty-five years in the
Police, and served in all three divisions of the
presidency.
Question 51 .—The proportion of ganja con
-
sumers among bad characters is not, I think,
greater than among the population generally.
I refer to the moderate consumers of the drug.
The question has not been made the subject
of careful enquiry. I do not think the mode
-
rate use of the drugs has any connection with
crime of any sort. I do not think that the exces
-
sive consumers of the drugs form a larger po
r -
tion among bad characters than among the
general population. My experience of excessive
use is confined to criminal lunatics. I cannot
recall any case in which the excessive use of the
drug has led to unpremeditated crime. I do,
however, remember a case of a man committing
murder in a state of madness in the Dharwar
district about 1885. I think the man is still in
the asylum. I cannot recall any other case. I am
not aware that criminals use the drugs to fortify
themselves to commit crime. I cannot call to my
mind any case in which the drugs have been so
used. I have no recollection of any case in which
these drugs were used to stupefy victims. There
are about 600 men in the Great Indian Peninsula
Railway Force. The drugs have never come to
notice in connection with any offences or breaches
of discipline in the force. There may have been
such cases, but I cannot recall any. There have
been many cases of men having been drunk from
liquor on duty, and been punished on that ac
-
c o u n t . I n e n l i s t i n g a m a n e n q u i r i e s a r e m a d e ,
as full as possible, regarding his history and char-
acter. Special enquiry would not be made re
-
garding the existence of the ganja habit. I
think I should refuse to take a man whom I
learnt to be an habitual smoker of ganja. A
man is generally enlisted when he is young and
such a habit acquired early in life would very
likely increase. I was in charge of a district in
1889. A lunatic who is violent and dangerous
is confined by the police and sent up to the Magis-
-
trate with a report. The report is not on a printed
form. The facts which are considered important
are whether the man is violent or dangerous to
others or himself, whether he is unable to take
care of himself and has no one to look after him.
We do not generally enquire into the causes of
insanity. The police are not required to make
enquiry on that point, and the report is not bound
to mention it; but as a matter of fact, the cause is
generally discovered, though not by formal en
-
quiry. If discovered, the fact would be mention
-
ed. The relations and friends, if found, would
probably give the information to the Chief Con-
-
stable who was making the enquiry about the
insane's residence and friends. The Chief Con-
-
stable would generally make the enquiry at a taluka;
the Head Constable in a petha. Any police
officer might make the enquiry, but the matter
would be conducted by the Chief Constable. Any
police officer might be deputed to make the en
-
quiry, but the Chief Constable might and would
probably verify it. The Chief Constable would
probably call in the relatives and make general
enquiries which would cover the point of cause
of insanity. There is not, as far as I know, any
printed form or instructions to guide the enquiring
officer, nor does he hold formal enquiries. He
simply hears what the people say. I think a
Chief Constable or other police officer of ordinary
intelligence would accept the cause as ganja
smoking if it were alleged. I have never heard,
so far as I remember, of a Magistrate sending
back the reports in a case of lunacy for further
enquiry regarding the lunatic's history or other
matters. The report is simply an explanation of
the police action in the matter. I do not know