THE CASE OF ASCENTIA DAWES

The first ever trial by jury in India, which took place in Madras was the case of Ascentia Dawes.
This was a mistress-employee case. On trial for the murder of her native slave girl Chequa,
alias Francesca, was her mistress, Ascentia Dawes. Ascentia was the wife of an East India
Company employee.

The case of Rex vs Dawes, set a precedent. The Governor and Council, in their letter to London
on April 15, 1669, lamented that the case had come to such a conclusion because “we found
ourselves at a loss in several things, for want of Instructions, having one man understanding
the Laws and formalities of them to instruct us…”. This was to mark the beginning of a process
of judicial reform in Madras which, after several stages, culminated in the formation of the
High Courts of Judicature in 1862. It also saw the upgrading of the post of Agent of Madras to
that of Governor, who remained the executive head till 1947. The note from the King's Counsel
on how the trial was to proceed was to serve for years as the basis on which the EIC settled
cases in its possessions in India.

A total of 36 persons were summoned for jury duty, out of which only 3 were challenged. A
jury of 12, consisting of 6 Englishmen and 6 Portuguese were empanelled and they found
Mrs.Dawes guilty of murder, but not in the manner in which she was alleged to have committed
the offence. They sought the direction of the court as to the manner in which to proceed further,
to which the Court directed that they were to bring upon a verdict of either guilty or not guilty.
To everyone’s surprise, the foreman of the jury, Mr. Reade, a son in law of Sir Edward Winter,
pronounced a verdict of not guilty and thus, Mrs.Dawes were acquitted. The outcome of the
case left no one in doubt that the Court needed the assistance of a person qualified in law.

There are no further details about the victim who is recorded as being a native. The records
speak of her as the wife of an East India Company employee. Love’s Vestiges of Old Madras
is silent on her nationality. Arthur Mitchell Fraas, in his 2011 dissertation submitted to the
Duke University. Dawes, the employee of the EIC? At time this episode took place, there were
not many English households in the city. From the names that crop up in records, it is likely
that this was William Dawes who by 1656 was Secretary of the Council. In 1657 he was
imprisoned on charges of corruption and was incarcerated for over a year. By the 1660s
however, he had bounced back and was once again in Council, as a trusted right hand of Sir
Edward Winter, the Agent for Madras. Winter was a character by himself and by 1664/65 was
incurring the displeasure of the EIC, which sent out Nicholas Buckeridge as Supervisor to
investigate matters. Winter retired in high dudgeon to Madapollam, a village in the West
Godavari District and from there, sent letters of protest to England, all of which were signed
by Dawes as well.

Sometime in 1664, Chequa died at the hands of Ascentia Dawes. The Agent and his Council
were uncertain of their powers to try a capital crime and wrote to England seeking guidance
from the EIC. The headquarters too was uncertain of the powers vested in the heads of its
outposts and so referred the matter to the Privy Council, which in turn passed it on to Sir
Heneage Finch (afterwards the first earl of Nottingham) then Solicitor General of England, and
much later the Lord Chancellor of England. Finch deliberated on the matter and in due course
pronounced that the Company had the jurisdiction to try such crimes, taking its powers from
the Charter of 1661, issued by King Charles II.

While matters progressed slowly in the trial of Ascentia Dawes (and we do not know if she
was placed under arrest during this time), things were hotting up on the Winter front. By early
1665, the Company, not waiting for a report from Buckeridge, sent out George Foxcroft to
supersede Winter as Agent. The composition of the Council remained otherwise unchanged,
Winter becoming Second-in-Council. Foxcroft began a detailed investigation of Winter’s
transactions and discovered incriminating evidence. With the balance of power shifting, Dawes
abandoned Winter and became a confidante of Foxcroft.
RAMA KAMATI OF BOMBAY

This trial was conducted when the administration and the judiciary of Bombay were under
troubled times. There was an increased level of lawlessness corruption, private malice was
unaccounted and the judiciary was ill-equipped to deal with the lawlessness and render justice.
Rama KOMATHI or Rama Komathi, was a brahmin of great wealth and influence. He was a
respected man in the East india company in a measure, and was one of the most notable Indian
men in the company. An Indian man who stayed loyal to the britishers in his olden days was
named a traitor and was labelled a conspirator and was made to stand by trial before a tribunal
of his company with the evidence of letters procured with the name of the accused was named
as someone who was in contact with a pirate named Kanhoji Angria.

The records of his life are scanty. He was connected with the command of Indian troops
under the British and had some connections with Kanhoji Angre.

He paid for the reconstruction of the Walkeshwar Temple in 1715 and also donated a temple
on Parsi Bazaar Street. He was clearly friendly with the British, since he is on record as one
of the honoured guests at the inauguration of St. Thomas' Cathedral on Christmas Day, 1718.

Unfortunately Charles Boone found a piece of paper that said that KOMATHI was working
with Boones archenemy-Kanhoji Angria. The paper was just a forgery by one of
KOMATHI’s jealous friends but Boone was so angry that he tortured and killed KOMATHI
and then just one day later it was found out that KOMATHI never helped Angria and Boone
paid money to KOMATHI’s family hoping for forgiveness.

The trial of Rama Komathi highlighted the arbitrariness of the British courts in India and the
lack of proving guilt beyond doubt of a reasonable mind carried out by the judiciary where
the judiciary failed to render justic3e to the man who remained loyal to their side. Komathi’s
servants were tortured to extract confession and witness, which was against the English law
but was yet followed through by Boone even when was protested by the Chief Justice,
Laurence Parker.

This witness testified during the trial that that there was interaction and correspondence
between Rama Komathi and the pirate chief Kanhoji Angare to kidnap the Governor Boone.
In regard to the source of his information, this witness said that he came to know about it from
a dancing girl and that she told that Angare had told her that Rama Komathi had written a letter
to him. That dancing girl was not examined. Letters written by Rama Komathi to Kanhoji
Angare were produced during the trial. They were in his handwriting and carried his seal too.

The Governor in Council drew the charge. His trial was held before an adhoc tribunal, which
was presided over by Governor Boone and consisted of members of the Council and Parker,
the Chief Justice of the Court. During the trial, the Chief Justice Parker came to know of the
torture of the witness and objected to it. The witness had been subjected to “cruel and inhuman
torture” and the evidence was fabricated with forged documents and even that evidence was
only a hearsay evidence. That servant was tortured by cutting off his thumb to extract evidence
and a statement implicating Komathi.

Parker came to know also the fact that such a torture was inflicted at the instance of Boone.
But, the result of showing this judicial independence was his dismissal from office, by the
Governor. This is what happens when the Executive has so much say over Judiciary. Rama
Komathi was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life with confiscation of all his
property. For eight long years he languished in gaol until death came to deliver him in 1728.

“It was of course only appropriate that a property plundered out of the estate of a tragic victim
of judicial error and malicious machinations of a gang of miscreants, should become the
inspiring venue of law and justice.” It was proved later, after Rama’s death, that the
incriminating letters were all forgeries, that the seal was fictitious, fabricated by a soni who
was an expert forger.

His immense wealth had excited the envy and cupidity of a clever gang of cheats and forgers
and the Governor too became involved in it at a later stage. All that the subsequent Government
could do then was to repair the wrong was to give some monetary compensation to Rama’s
son. His conduct of the trial was dubious. He subjected a witness, a servant of Rama, to torture
to extract a confession from him, notwithstanding the protest of Parker that judicial torture was
illegal under English law. There is no suggestion that, barring Boone, the other members of the
tribunal had any inkling of the plot against the prisoner. There is also no evidence that Boone
was the brain or even the originator of the conspiracy. After the sentence, Governor Boone
invited claims against the property of the condemned criminal; and promptly put in a claim of
his own to the tune of Rs. 12,791, a very large sum in those days.