Page 352 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

320 Part IV
complicity ana llio latter convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprison-
Mr, I'lowdcu'i letter No. 32. dated 41b Apiii 18S1. niont. It is need loss to say that the pro-
to tbo Embassy. Hid No. 321, sccution bached by the wealth and influ­
ence of Mahomed Saleh did its utmost to defeat the ends of justice—rather than
endeavour to assist the Court in gelling true evidence.
211. At the strong representation of Lord DulTerin at Constantinople, a
revisional application was made to the Court of Appeal with tho result that the
proceedings of tho Baghdad Court wore quashed and a retrial ordered. Tho
Court, however, came to tho conclusion that under the circumstances before
them, tlioy could not reconcile it with
Secret, July 1882, No*. 109—1G7.
justico or with dictates of thoir conscience
that Ahmed should bo put to death, their view being that Ahmed and
Mahomed Saleh stood exonerated. ” Tbo prisoners wore then released on bail
(judgment, dated 19th June 18S2.)
212. Endeavours wero thou made by Lord Du fieri n to get the Baghdad
Court’s decision quashed by the Appellate
S'crct E., November 1882, Noi. 127—128.
Secret K., December 1882, Nos. 223—225. Court, with the result that tho case was
Secret E , Juno 1883 ,Nos. 255—2GG. transferred to the Criminal Court at Diar-
Sccitt E., August 1883, Nos. 44—51.
bekr for retrial. The proceedings ended
again without a conviction.
213. In the Diary of tho Resident ending 31st December 188G, a reference
was made to a rumour that Mahomed Saleh
Secret E., March 1SS7, No. 45.
and his servant Ahmed had been arrested
and released on hail prior to a third trial at Aleppo.
214. This rumour was afterwards confirmed. The proceedings of the
External A., April 188S, Nos. 120-139. Diarbekr Court were quashed by the Court
External B., June lSbS,tNoi. 302*303. of appeal and the accused were ordered to
he produced beforo tho Aleppo Court. Tho proceedings here ended in a fiasco
as before.

CHAPTER XXI.
Murder of Jemadar Ghulam Liu of the detachment at Baghdad of
the 125th (Napier’s) Rifles, and murders committed by Lance
Naik Abdul Karim, 1904*
215. On 30th January 1904, Major Newmarch telegraphed to us that
the Officer Commanding the detachment
Secret E., August 1904, No*. 511—5SG.
at Baghdad had been missing, having no
doubt been murdered, and at tho Consul-General’s suggestion a reward of
Rs. 300 was sanctioned for recovery of his body or evidence leading to detection
(telegram dated 6th February 1904).
216. On lltli February, Lance-Naick Abdul Karim gave information to
Major Newmarch, which enabled him and the Turkish authorities to trace
the deceased’s body to a Khan across (lie river hired by Mr. D’Arcy of tho
Persian Oil Company. The body had fourteen dagger wounds. From the
Lance Naick’s information and other enquiries made, there was sufficient ground
for suspecting three non-commissioned officers and nine men having been impli­
cated in the murder.
217. Tho motive for this foul murder was found firstly in tho jealousy of tho
Jemadar, who had been promoted from a Naick in another regiment (9th Bombay
Infantry) to a Jemadar in the 125th Bombay Infantry, to which tho guard at
Baghdad at the time belonged. Secondly, the Jemadar was a strict discipli­
narian and was therefore unpopular in the detachment (Major Newmarch's No.
196-14, dated 4th March).
218. Tho exact circumstances’ under which tho murder took place wero
very obscure, as on accouut of tho conspiracy in the detachment, it was difficult
to get at the facts. The theory of the Turkish police, supported by what
Major Newmarch supposed to be false evidence, was that the Jemadar was
murdered in the lines by the sepoys; that a certain Afghan named Akram or
Akram Khan was present at tho murder, having been invited to dinner by the
gonoys beforehand; that after murdering the Jemadar the sepoys wrapped