Landmark Judgement

Queen-Empress vs. Abdullah, 1885

Dying Declaration & Murder

Allahabad High Court·27 February 1885

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

27 February 1885

Judges

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

Citation

(2006) 3 CALLT 9, AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 302

Acts / Provisions

Section 32, Indian Evidence Act 1872; Section 26, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023; Section 302, Indian Penal Code;

Facts of the Case

Abdullah was charged with the murder of one Dulhari, a prostitute, by cutting her throat with razor.
While she was still alive, Dulhari, with her throat cut, was taken to police station, where she was questioned by her mother in the presence of a sub-inspector, then by the sub-inspector.
She was then taken to the hospital where she was questioned by the magistrate; she was unable to speak but conscious and had to make signs.
The post-mortem examination confirmed the extent of her injuries, revealing the deep and fatal cut through her windpipe and gullet. This evidence established the violent nature of the attack and underscored the severity of Dulari’s condition at the time she was discovered.
Before dying, the victim identified Abdullah as the attacker in a dying declaration, which was recorded shortly after the assault.
Despite being unable to speak due to her injuries, she identified her attacker, Abdullah, through gestures, which were considered a valid "dying declaration" under the law, allowing for his conviction based on this nonverbal communication.
The dying declaration became the primary evidence against Abdullah during the trial.
The court relied solely on this statement to convict Abdullah of murder.

The court upheld that the dying declaration made by the deceased was admissible as evidence under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
She was unable to speak but conscious and able to make gestures and signs. Magistrate asked dulari, as who had wounded her, but due to the injured condition dulari was unable to speak.
After that, The magistrate mentioned several names one by one and asked if they had wounded her. Dulari moves her hand forward and backwards and made negative and affirmative signs.
Subsequently, the magistrate asked whether Abdullah had wounded her, for that dulari waved her hand made the sign in the affirmative, the magistrate recorded the statement.
After that question was put to her that if she had been wounded with a knife or sword. In this regard, dulari makes a negative sign, again magistrate asked her if she had been wounded with the RAZOR. She in answer to this made an affirmative sign.
In this way, the magistrate records the dying declaration of Dulari and the same was accepted as evidence to prosecute Abdullah.
Based on the dying declaration, Abdullah was convicted of murder. The court found that the evidence presented sufficiently established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court held that Dulhari not only made an oral statement but also satisfied the condition precedent of admissibility of her statement. Her state of health, the manner in which she tried to explain to her mother, the police and finally to magistrate.
With her throat cut, at her deathbed she anxiously explained by moving her hand in answer to questions, where the throat of the deceased girl was cut and she being unable to speak indicated the name of the accused by the signs of her hand, this was held to be relevant as dying declaration.
Based on the dying declaration, Abdullah was convicted of murder. The court found that the evidence presented sufficiently established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case established that a dying declaration holds significant evidentiary value and can be used as the primary or sole evidence to convict an accused if it meets the criteria of credibility and voluntariness.

The court’s decision in Queen-Empress v. Abdullah set a significant precedent in the interpretation of dying declarations.
By accepting non-verbal gestures as a valid form of dying declaration, the court expanded the scope of admissible evidence in cases where victims are incapacitated from speaking due to their injuries.
This ruling underscored the importance of context and reliability in evaluating the evidentiary value of dying declarations.
The judgement in this case became a foundational precedent for the admissibility and sufficiency of dying declarations in Indian criminal law.