'Conferences Won't Fix Justice System, Need More Judges, Infra': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Who Spent 23 Yrs In Jail

The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man who spent approximately 23 years in jail on the charges of the gruesome murder of his wife and 3 children, as it concluded that the prosecution's evidence did not conclusively prove that the offence was committed by him. In its 10-page order, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay said that the case was a sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system and it required introspection. The bench added that real remedial measures like increasing the number of judges, their supporting staff, and infrastructure are the need of the hour, as merely holding conferences and meetings can never ameliorate the situation. While acquitting the accused, the Bench said that his real punishment has not come to an end and his real ordeal will begin after his release. "His parents and siblings may not be alive. His wife and three children have already died and whether his surviving son, P.W.-2, Ajeem, who must be now aged about 25-26 years now, will welcome his father to his house is also not certain". Briefly put, as per the prosecution's case on the intervening night of August 29 and 30, 2003, the accused-appellant (Raees), slit the throats of his wife and their three children using a knife following a domestic altercation. The FIR was lodged by the deceased wife's uncle. The trial court subsequently found him guilty of committing 4 murders, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, dealing with his appeal against conviction, the High Court examined the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of the sole alleged eyewitness, Raees's surviving 5-year-old son, Azim (PW2). The HC noted that during his cross-examination, the child shockingly admitted to giving tutored statements at the behest of the informant and a government advocate. The boy confessed that he was threatened with eviction from the informant's house if he did not testify as directed. Crucially, the child revealed that his father was actually out of the village selling husk during the time of the incident, and he returned the next morning after being informed about his wife's murder on the phone. The child also stated that when the accused arrived at his home and cried over the dead bodies, his clothes caught blood stains, and thereafter, an altercation took place between the accused and the informant, who subsequently got him arrested. The Court also took note of an existing enmity between the informant and the accused over a land dispute, which further cast doubt on the informant's motives.Furthermore, the Court outrightly rejected the prosecution's reliance on 'weak' extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the accused to two witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4). Relying on the Supreme Court's order in Sahadevan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Bench noted that the statements were recorded by the IO after an unexplained delay of two months, and it was inherently improbable that the accused would confide in individuals from a different village who were neither close to him nor influential. The bench also took into account the medical evidence, which contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the use of a weapon of offence. Essentially, the post-mortem reports indicated that the fatal assaults were made by some very heavy incised weapon which almost severed the neck of the deceased from their bodies. The bench noted that this report negated the theory of the prosecution that such fatal injuries were caused by an ordinary knife, which was recovered at the point of the appellant. The bench also took into account the evidence of police brutality on the accused, which completely contradicted the IO's version, who had denied that the accused was beaten in custody or had his nails plucked at the police station. Against this backdrop, the bench remarked that while it was a gruesome murder of a mother and her three children in the most brutal manner, the prosecution's evidence could not conclusively implicate and prove that the offence was committed by none other than the appellant. Hence, the bench acquitted him by giving him the benefit of doubt and directed his release forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Case title - Raees vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

'Conferences Won't Fix Justice System, Need More Judges, Infra': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Who Spent 23 Yrs In Jail

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags