The Allahabad High Court acquitted Raees, convicted of murdering his wife and three children in 2003, after finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted the surviving child witness admitted his testimony was tutored and called for structural reforms to address criminal appeal backlogs.
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man who spent nearly 23 years in prison after being convicted of murdering his wife and three children in 2003, holding that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish his guilt.
A division bench of Justices Siddharth and Jai Krishna Upadhyay allowed the criminal appeal filed by Raees in its February 16 order, describing the prolonged incarceration as a reflection of deep-rooted problems in India’s criminal justice system.
The case arose from the intervening night of August 29 and 30, 2003, when Noor Jahan and three of her children were found dead with deep incised wounds to their necks. The FIR was lodged by Mohd. Zabir, the deceased woman’s uncle, who alleged that Raees had killed his wife and children following a domestic altercation.
Based on the prosecution’s case, the trial court convicted Raees under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on four counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The court, while hearing the appeal, scrutinised the prosecution’s evidence and found several infirmities that rendered the case unreliable. The sole alleged eyewitness was Ajeem, the couple’s surviving son, who was five years old at the time of the incident.
During cross-examination, the witness admitted that his earlier statements had been tutored at the instance of the informant and a government advocate. He further stated that he was threatened with eviction from the informant’s house if he did not depose as instructed, a revelation that the court found severely damaging to the prosecution’s case.
The bench also noted that although the deceased woman’s parents and three brothers were alive at the time of the incident, none of them lodged the FIR or stepped into the witness box to support the prosecution. This conspicuous absence, coupled with an existing land dispute between the informant and the accused, raised questions about the complainant’s motives.
The appellant had stated in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had been implicated due to enmity with the complainant and that he was outside the village selling husk when the alleged incident occurred.
Also read: Supreme Court rules post-bail conduct irrelevant in appeal against grant of bail
Medical evidence further weakened the prosecution’s case. The postmortem reports revealed that each deceased had suffered a single but extremely deep incised wound that severed major neck structures, including the trachea and vertebral column.
The court observed that such injuries appeared to have been caused by a very heavy sharp-edged weapon, a finding that contradicted the prosecution’s claim that an ordinary knife, allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, was the murder weapon.
The court additionally examined the prosecution’s reliance on extrajudicial confessions allegedly made by Raees to two witnesses from another village. Referring to settled legal principles, the bench noted that extrajudicial confession is a weak form of evidence that cannot be accepted without corroboration and that the circumstances surrounding these confessions did not inspire confidence.
The two-month delay by police in recording the witnesses’ statements further cast doubt on their veracity.
The bench also took note of troubling circumstances surrounding the accused’s arrest. The jail doctor who examined Raees shortly after his arrest found injuries on his body, including broken nails, raising questions about possible custodial mistreatment. The investigating officer had denied any assault.
While acknowledging that the killings were gruesome and committed in a brutal manner, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The judges observed that, “it is a gruesome murder of a mother and her three children in most brutal manner but we are not convinced that prosecution evidence is such which conclusively implicates and proves that the offence was committed by none other than the appellant of this case.”
Granting the benefit of doubt, the court directed Raees’s immediate release if not wanted in any other case. The bench, however, reflected on the human cost of the prolonged incarceration, remarking that his real ordeal might only begin after his release. The judges noted that his parents and siblings may no longer be alive, his wife and three children have died, and whether his surviving son, now aged about 25 or 26 years, would welcome him remains uncertain.
The court described the case as a sad commentary on India’s criminal justice delivery system, calling for real remedial measures rather than administrative optics.
The bench stressed that, “there is no shortcut to hard work required for deciding criminal appeals” and that merely holding conferences and meetings can never ameliorate the situation. Increasing the number of judges, strengthening supporting staff, and improving infrastructure were identified as the pressing needs of the hour.
Case title: Raees v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2005.
Click here to read Order/Judgment.
Leave a Reply