CASE BRIEFS

Unit 1

1. Queen Empress v Abdullah (1885 All) [S. 8, 32]

Facts – Abdullah was prosecuted for the murder of a girl, described as prostitute. She was attacked
in morning by the accused who cut her throat with a razor. She was taken to the police station and
then to the hospital where her mother, Kotwal, District Magistrate asked certain questions to her.
When the magistrate laid out few names and asked if they attacked him, she made a negative hand
sign but when the name of Abdullah was taken, she gave a positive gesture. Then after a number of
successive questions, she revealed the particulars of Abdullah stating that she was alone at the time
of incident, it was morning, he had cut her throat with the razor etc. She died on the third day. The
Trial Court declared him to be guilty and took the conduct of the victim relevant u/s 8. Appeal was
made to HC.
Issue – Whether the signs made in response to the questions by her was relevant u/s 8 as conduct of
an injured persons (or u/s 32(1) as dying declaration)?
Held – Majority held that the evidence was relevant u/s 32(1) as dying declaration. The conduct to
be valid u/s 8 must be influenced directly by the facts and not by interposition of words spoken by a
third person. The signs were influenced not by facts but by questions and hence it does not fall
within the definition of S. 8. Furthermore, in order for a statement to be relevant u/Explanation 2,
the relevancy of the conduct must be satisfied first.
The conduct is relevant u/s 32 as dying declaration as it is a statement made by a person as to the
cause of his death. By affirmative answers she had adopted the words of the question and it became
her “verbal statement”.
Minority (Mahmood J) declared it to be relevant u/s 8. He stated that conduct does not mean only
such conduct as is directly and immediately influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact. To him,
“nodding the head or waving the hand” is not a word.