Comprehension
It was the strangest murder trial I ever attended, where the old woman was found battered to death. He was a heavy stout man with bulging bloodshot eyes. All his muscles seemed to be in his thighs. The clock had just struck two in the morning. Mrs Salmon in 15 Northwood Street had been unable to sleep: she heard a door click shut and thought it was her own gate. So she went to the window and saw Adams (that was his name) on the steps of Mrs Parker's house. He had just come out and he was wearing gloves. He had a hammer in his hand and she saw him drop it into the laurel bushes by the front gate. But before he moved away, he had looked up at her window. The fatal instinct that tells a man when he is watched exposed him in the light of a streetlamp to her gaze-his eyes suffused with horrifying and brutal fear, like an animal's when you raise a whip.
Mrs Salmon was called in the Court.
`And do you see the man here in court?'
[She looked straight at the big man in the dock, who stared hard at her with his Pekingese eyes without emotion.]
`Yes,' she said, `there he is.'
`You are quite certain?'
She said simply, `I couldn't be mistaken, sir.'
`Thank you, Mrs Salmon.'
[Counsel for the defence rose to cross-examine.]
`Now, Mrs Salmon, you must remember that a man's life may depend on your evidence.'
`I do remember it, sir.'
`Is your eyesight good?'
`I have never had to wear spectacles, sir.'
`You are a woman of fifty-five?'
`Fifty-six, sir.'
`And the man you saw was on the other side of the road?'
`Yes, sir.'
`And it was two o'clock in the morning. You must have remarkable eyes, Mrs Salmon?'
`No, sir. There was moonlight, and when the man looked up, he had the lamplight on his
face.'
`And you have no doubt whatever that the man you saw is the prisoner?'
`None whatever, sir. It isn't a face one forgets.'
Then he said, `Do you mind, Mrs Salmon, examining again the people in court?
No, not the prisoner. Stand up, please, Mr Adams!
And there at the back of the court with thick stout body and muscular legs and a pair of
bulging eyes, was the exact image of the man in the dock.
`Now think very carefully, Mrs Salmon. Can you still swear that the man you saw drop the
hammer in Mrs Parker's garden was the prisoner and not this man, who is his twin brother?'
Of course she couldn't.
Mrs Salmon was called in the Court.
`And do you see the man here in court?'
[She looked straight at the big man in the dock, who stared hard at her with his Pekingese eyes without emotion.]
`Yes,' she said, `there he is.'
`You are quite certain?'
She said simply, `I couldn't be mistaken, sir.'
`Thank you, Mrs Salmon.'
[Counsel for the defence rose to cross-examine.]
`Now, Mrs Salmon, you must remember that a man's life may depend on your evidence.'
`I do remember it, sir.'
`Is your eyesight good?'
`I have never had to wear spectacles, sir.'
`You are a woman of fifty-five?'
`Fifty-six, sir.'
`And the man you saw was on the other side of the road?'
`Yes, sir.'
`And it was two o'clock in the morning. You must have remarkable eyes, Mrs Salmon?'
`No, sir. There was moonlight, and when the man looked up, he had the lamplight on his
face.'
`And you have no doubt whatever that the man you saw is the prisoner?'
`None whatever, sir. It isn't a face one forgets.'
Then he said, `Do you mind, Mrs Salmon, examining again the people in court?
No, not the prisoner. Stand up, please, Mr Adams!
And there at the back of the court with thick stout body and muscular legs and a pair of
bulging eyes, was the exact image of the man in the dock.
`Now think very carefully, Mrs Salmon. Can you still swear that the man you saw drop the
hammer in Mrs Parker's garden was the prisoner and not this man, who is his twin brother?'
Of course she couldn't.
Question: 1
Why do you think, has the Author called the trial, 'strangest‘ murder trial he ever attended ?
Why do you think, has the Author called the trial, 'strangest‘ murder trial he ever attended ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Because the accused had a very strange personality.
- Because, despite having a potential witness and evidence against the accused, his wrong could not be proved.
- Because, Mrs. Salmon‘s evidence could not be proved before the Court.
- None of these.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (B) : Because, despite having a potential witness and evidence against the accused, his wrong could not be proved.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage describes a murder trial where the prosecution had a witness, Mrs Salmon, and physical evidence in the form of the hammer, yet the accused was not convicted. Let's check each option against what actually happens in the passage:
- Because the accused had a very strange personality: The passage describes Adams as a heavy, stout man with bulging eyes, but this physical description is not what makes the author call the trial strange, it is simply how the man looked.
- Because, despite having a potential witness and evidence against the accused, his wrong could not be proved: Mrs Salmon confidently identified Adams and described the hammer and the gloves, strong evidence on the surface. But when the defence produced a man who looked identical to Adams, his twin brother, Mrs Salmon could no longer swear which of the two she had actually seen. So a case that looked airtight collapsed at the last moment, which is exactly what makes it strange.
- Because, Mrs. Salmon's evidence could not be proved before the Court: This is only half correct, her evidence was not disproved as false, it was made unreliable by the surprise appearance of the twin. The option misses the reason why her evidence failed.
- None of these: Since one option correctly captures the reason, this cannot be right.
The passage's twist, a strong witness undone by an identical twin, is what the author is pointing to.
So the correct answer is Because, despite having a potential witness and evidence against the accused, his wrong could not be proved.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
“…his eyes suffused with horrifying and brutal fear, like an animal's when you raise a whip.” can be called as :
“…his eyes suffused with horrifying and brutal fear, like an animal's when you raise a whip.” can be called as :
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Personification
- Simile
- Onomatopoeia
- None of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (B) : Simile.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question tests identification of a literary device in the given line, which compares a man's fearful eyes to an animal's eyes when threatened with a whip. Let's examine each option:
- Personification: Personification gives human qualities to non-human things or ideas. Here, the comparison runs the opposite way, a human's eyes are compared to an animal's, so this device does not apply.
- Simile: A simile is a direct comparison between two different things using a connecting word such as like or as. The line uses the word like to compare the man's eyes to an animal's eyes under threat of a whip. This is a textbook simile.
- Onomatopoeia: Onomatopoeia refers to words that imitate sounds, such as buzz or crash. There is no sound-imitating word in this line, so this option does not fit.
- None of the above: Since the line clearly fits the definition of a simile, this option is incorrect.
The presence of the word like connecting two different things, a man's eyes and an animal's eyes, is the clearest marker of a simile.
So the correct answer is Simile.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
The expression “Pekingese eyes” used in the passage refers to which of the following ?
The expression “Pekingese eyes” used in the passage refers to which of the following ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Bulging eyes
- Red eyes
- Small eyes
- None of them
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (A) : Bulging eyes.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage first describes Adams as having bulging bloodshot eyes and later, in the courtroom, refers to his Pekingese eyes. Pekingese is a breed of small dog known for its rounded, protruding eyes. Let's check the options against this:
- Bulging eyes: This matches both the dog breed's known feature and the earlier description of Adams in the passage, bulging bloodshot eyes. The author is using Pekingese eyes as a shorthand for the same bulging quality described earlier.
- Red eyes: The passage does mention bloodshot eyes, which can look reddish, but redness is not the defining trait of a Pekingese dog's eyes, their shape and prominence is.
- Small eyes: Pekingese dogs are known for round, protruding eyes, not small ones, so this option describes the opposite of the actual trait.
- None of them: Since one option correctly matches the description, this cannot be right.
Since the passage already establishes Adams's bulging eyes earlier, and Pekingese dogs are recognised for the same bulging, rounded eyes, the phrase is describing that same feature.
So the correct answer is Bulging eyes.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Why was Mrs. Salmon convinced that the man she saw had committed the crime ?
Why was Mrs. Salmon convinced that the man she saw had committed the crime ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Because she saw the man on the steps of Mrs. Parker‘s House and he was wearing gloves.
- Because he had a hammer in his hand and she saw him drop it into the laurel bushes by the front gate.
- Because when he looked up at her window, his eyes were suffused with horrifying and brutal fear.
- Because she had seen him clearly in the light of street lamp.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D) : Because she had seen him clearly in the light of street lamp.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question is about why Mrs Salmon was so certain the man she saw was the one committing the crime, in other words, what made her identification confident rather than shaky. Let's test each option:
- Because she saw the man on the steps of Mrs. Parker's House and he was wearing gloves: Seeing him on the steps wearing gloves tells us what she observed, but gloves alone do not explain why she was sure of who he was, gloves do not reveal a face.
- Because he had a hammer in his hand and she saw him drop it into the laurel bushes by the front gate: This detail supports that a crime was linked to the man, it is evidence of the act, but it does not explain how she was able to recognise his face with confidence.
- Because when he looked up at her window, his eyes were suffused with horrifying and brutal fear: This detail describes the man's expression and suggests guilt, but fear in someone's eyes does not by itself confirm identity, it is more about his emotional state than her certainty of recognition.
- Because she had seen him clearly in the light of street lamp: During cross-examination, when asked how she could be so sure at two in the morning, Mrs Salmon explained that when the man looked up, he had the lamplight on his face. This is the direct reason her identification was so firm, she had a clear, well-lit view of his face.
Out of all the details, only the lamplight explains the confidence behind her identification, the other options describe what she saw him do, not why she could be sure it was him.
So the correct answer is Because she had seen him clearly in the light of street lamp.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Who was murdered in the scene described in the passage ?
Who was murdered in the scene described in the passage ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Mrs. Wheeler
- Mrs. Parker
- Mrs. Salmon
- It cannot be inferred.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D) :It cannot be inferred.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage opens by saying the old woman was found battered to death, and later tells us that Adams was seen leaving Mrs Parker's house. It is tempting to conclude that Mrs Parker was the victim, but let's check what the passage actually states versus what it leaves unsaid:
- Mrs. Wheeler: This name does not appear anywhere in the passage, so there is no basis at all for this option.
- Mrs. Parker: The passage tells us Adams came out of Mrs Parker's house, and links this house to where the crime occurred. This makes Mrs Parker a strong candidate, but the passage never directly states that the victim, the old woman, is in fact Mrs Parker. The two facts sit close together but are never explicitly joined.
- Mrs. Salmon: Mrs Salmon is described giving evidence as a witness in court, she is clearly alive and testifying, so she cannot be the victim.
- It cannot be inferred: Since the passage never explicitly names the murdered old woman, and only implies a link to Mrs Parker's house without confirming her identity as the victim, the safest and most accurate reading is that the victim's identity is not confirmed by the text given.
A careful reading shows the passage gives strong circumstantial hints toward Mrs Parker's house, but stops short of stating her name as the victim, so the identity of the murdered woman is not something the passage confirms outright.
So the correct answer is It cannot be inferred.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT Questions
- In the realm of contemporary literature, the interplay between character and setting is a nuanced dance that shapes the narrative’s essence. The setting, often described with painstaking detail, becomes more than a backdrop; it becomes a character, influencing the plot and character development.
Consider, for instance, the barren expanse of the desert in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The arid landscape mirrors the sense of isolation felt by the protagonist, Gogol, as he navigates his identity crisis in a foreign land. The relentless sun and vast sands are not mere descriptions; they are the silent witnesses to his inner turmoil.
On the other end of the literary spectrum, there is Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The lush, vibrant Kerala backwaters are not just the setting; they are a character woven into the fabric of the story. The teeming, humid landscape reflects the complex web of human relationships and secrets that unravel in the narrative. This interplay is not confined to contemporary literature alone. In Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy Macbeth, the eerie and foreboding setting of the Scottish moors casts a dark shadow over the characters’ actions. The moors, shrouded in mist and mystery, serve as an ever-present omen of the impending tragedy. - The crisis of justice that is the subject matter of discussion in the media today is in fact the crisis of “justice for the middle class”. The main difference between India and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries is that whereas the middle class in these countries has reasonable access to justice, in India it does not. A vocal and powerful middle class has emerged in India since 1991. It is demanding reasonable access to justice. Much of the judicial reform effort will help meet this demand…
The question of justice for the poor is, however, an altogether different challenge. No country in the world has been able to secure justice for the poor. Most of the jails of the richest countries are filled with the poorest. The “masses” are more often victims of the criminal justice system than of crime. In India as well, jails are almost exclusively filled with the poor. The civil justice system is hardly accessible to them. They are often victimised by lawyers, touts and court staff. They are docket-excluded, a new type of untouchability. The language and the logic—and the colonial and feudal culture—of the judicial system are alien to them. It rarely takes cognisance of their needs and interests.
Their main concern, therefore, is to escape the attention of the justice system, criminal and civil. A landless Dalit person in the interior of Madhya Pradesh once gave me an insightful definition of a court from the perspective of the masses: “A court is a place where you are forcibly taken by the police to be punished; no one goes to a court.” In contrast, many lawyers and judges colloquially define a court as “a temple of justice where rights are protected”.
These sharply divergent visions mean that justice for one section is often injustice for another. Protecting the livelihood of traditional taxi and auto drivers from predatory pricing by corporate app-based taxi providers by imaginatively using the available tools of law to delay their incursion would be seen by the rich and by sections of the middle class as a failure of the judicial system, and possibly as also resulting in a downgrading of the “ease of doing business” measure. However, the masses would see such a judicial intervention as strong evidence of a good justice system. Although the conflict over competing visions of the nation and conflicting demands from social and economic segments have confined judicial reform of judicial administration mainly to “neutral” areas such as process reform, procedural law, technology, planning and court and case management, judge strength, and the workload of judges, there has been considerable improvement in these areas, and the judicial system has improved its performance.
[Extracted, with edits, from “Justice and the Two Ideas of India”, by G. Mohan Gopal, Frontline] - Everything she wanted was here, at Carignano, in Kasauli. Here, on the ridge of the mountain, in this quiet house. It was the place, and the time of life, that she had wanted and prepared for all her life-as she realized on the first day at Carignano, with a great, cool flowering of relief - and at last she had it. She wanted no one and nothing else. Whatever else came, or happened here, would be an unwelcome intrusion and distraction. This she tried to convey to the plodding postman with a cold and piercing stare from the height of the ridge onto his honest bull back. Unfortunately, he did not look up at her on the hilltop but stared stolidly down at the dust piling onto his shoes as he plodded on. A bullock-man, an oafish ox, she thought bitterly. She stepped backwards into the garden and the wind suddenly billowed up and threw the pine branches about as though to curtain her. She was grey, tall and thin and her silk sari made a sweeping, shivering sound and she fancied she could merge with the pine trees and be mistaken for one. To be a tree, no more and no less, was all she was prepared to undertake.
What pleased and satisfied her so, here at Carignano, was its barrenness. This was the chief virtue of all Kasauli of course-its starkness. It had rocks, it had pines, it had light and air. In every direction there was a sweeping view - to the north, of the mountains, to the south, of the plains. Occasionally an eagle swam through this clear unobstructed mass of light and air, that was all. And Carignano, her home on the ridge, had no more than that. Why should it? The sun shone on its white walls. Its windows were open the ones facing north opened on to the blue waves of the Himalayas flowing out and up to the line of ice and snow sketched upon the sky, while those that faced south looked down the plunging cliff to the plain stretching out, flat and sere to the blurred horizon.
Yes, there were some apricot trees close to the house. There were clumps of iris that had finished blooming. There was the kitchen with a wing of smoke lifting out of its chimney and a stack of wood outside its door. But these were incidental, almost unimportant.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Fire on the Mountain” by Anita Desai] - English literature is a vast and diverse field that has left an indelible mark on the world of letters. From the eloquent plays of William Shakespeare to the complex novels of Jane Austen and the profound poetry of William Wordsworth, English literature offers a window into the human experience. One of the luminaries of English literature is William Shakespeare, often hailed as the greatest playwright in the history of English language. His works, including Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, are celebrated for their exploration of human nature, love, ambition, and tragedy. His characters, such as the tormented Hamlet and the star-crossed lovers Romeo and Juliet, continue to captivate readers and audiences worldwide.
The 19th century ushered in a new era of literary giants. Jane Austen’s novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, provide incisive social commentary through the lens of wit and romance. Austen’s heroines, like Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood, remain beloved literary figures known for their intelligence and resilience. The Romantic era brought forth poets like William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who celebrated * 8 UG the beauty of nature and the emotional intensity of the individual. Wordsworth’s ‘‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’’ and Coleridge’s ‘‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’’ are testament to the power of the written words to evoke profound emotions and imagery. Moving towards 20th century, English literature continued to evolve. Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking novel Mrs. Dalloway explored the inner thoughts and lives of its characters with a modernist narrative style. Dystopian visions, as seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four provided stark warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and the erosion of individual freedom.
Today, English literature is a global phenomenon, transcending borders and languages. Indian authors like Arundhati Roy, with her novel The God of Small Things, have won prestigious international literary awards. The book not only explores intricate family dynamics but also delves into the broader socio-political landscape of India. In summary, English literature is a testament to the enduring power of storytelling and the written word. It encompasses an array of authors, themes, and styles that continue to captivate and inspire readers across the world. - On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh. He proceeded there with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square, which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops’ fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer’s own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. The people were not able to escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes, the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those who lived nearby came and carried away some of the wounded from the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India…
Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot, just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible business.
[Col. Wedgwood, MP, speaking in the British Parliament, 22 December 1919]
View More Questions