Allahabad High Court: In a felony attraction filed by a person convicted of the homicide of his spouse and youngsters, the Division Bench of Siddharth* and Jai Krishna Upadhyay, JJ., allowed the attraction, holding that the prosecution’s proof didn’t conclusively implicate and show that the offence was dedicated by the convict.
Background
The convict was married to the niece of the complainant (deceased), and so they had 4 youngsters collectively, two sons and two daughters. On 30 August 2003, the complainant obtained info that the convict had murdered his spouse and three youngsters. Upon receipt of this info, he and the daddy of the deceased spouse, together with the villagers, reached the convict’s village to inquire concerning the incident. The villagers knowledgeable that the earlier night time, the convict had an altercation along with his deceased, which led to him murdering her and his three youngsters by stabbing. The solely survivor was the 5-year-old son, who mentioned that his father killed his mom and siblings. The useless our bodies had been discovered within the courtyard of the home, and the convict had fled the scene. Accordingly, a case was registered towards the convict.
Upon evaluation of the autopsy studies and different proof, the trial courtroom convicted him underneath Section 302, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Hence, the current attraction.
Analysis
Informant’s assertion
At the outset, the Court famous that Prosecution Witnesses (PWs) 1 and a pair of had been the witnesses of the incident, whereas PWs 3 and 4 had been witnesses earlier than whom the convict made extra-judicial confessions. PW 1 was the informant who couldn’t inform who knowledgeable him concerning the murders and claimed that an unknown particular person knowledgeable him at 5 a.m. that his niece and her three youngsters had been murdered the earlier night time between 12 to 1 a.m. PW 2, the surviving son, claimed that his khalu/mausa/uncle knowledgeable the informant on the telephone and requested him to come back to their village. Thus, the Court acknowledged that the informant’s assertion that he obtained info in his village from an unknown particular person didn’t appear to be appropriate.
The Court additional famous that the surviving son acknowledged in his examination-in-chief that on the time of the homicide of his mom and siblings, he was in his home and had hidden himself. He acknowledged that after committing the homicide, his father/convict left the home; thereafter, his khala/mausi/aunt got here to the home, and he got here out from hiding.
The Court remarked that it was notable that the informant was the uncle of the deceased, and her mother and father had been alive, however they didn’t file an FIR towards their son-in-law. In his cross-examination, the informant admitted that aside from the mother and father of the deceased, her three brothers had been additionally current, however none of them lodged the FIR or stepped into the witness field to show the case towards the convict.
Furthermore, the informant claimed that when he reached the crime scene, the daddy of the deceased and his different brother, mom of the deceased, nephew, and so on., a complete of 20 individuals had already reached, and the villagers gathered knowledgeable the household that the murders had occurred because of a matrimonial quarrel. During cross-examination, the informant couldn’t title even one such villager, who knowledgeable him {that a} quarrel had taken place between the convict and the deceased on the fateful night time.
Surviving son’s assertion
Upon examination of the survivor son’s assertion, the Court famous that in his examination-in-chief, he acknowledged that he noticed the incident along with his personal eyes, how his mom and siblings had been murdered by his father with a knife, and he hid himself, solely to come back out when his khala got here. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted to the next:
He was residing with the informant and his spouse, who gave him scrumptious meals to eat and good garments to put on, however he was not learning.
The informant directed him to present a press release within the Court as per his instructions; he could be ousted from the home.
The informant took him to the home of their personal advocate and authorities advocate for tutoring him, and he had given tutored statements earlier than the Court.
His khalu lives along with his khala, and their home is located at a distance of ten steps from his home.
At the time of the incident, his mom raised an alarm, and greater than 50 folks gathered, together with his khalu and khala.
His father/convict, sells husk as a contractor in one other district, and on the day of the incident, his father had gone to promote the identical in a tractor. After the incident, the convict was knowledgeable on the telephone, and he reached the home at about 9 or 10 a.m. the subsequent day, and wept holding the useless our bodies.
When the convict got here, the informant was current there, and abuses occurred between them, which led to the informant getting the convict arrested by the police.
His father/convict, was badly crushed by the police, and his nails had been plucked.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court acknowledged that if the son’s assertion was learn with the convict’s assertion, it was discovered that the convict acknowledged that on the time of the incident, he had gone to promote husk outdoors the village. The convict additionally acknowledged that he had been implicated within the case because of enmity with the informant. Additionally, the Court famous that the jail physician who medically examined the convict admitted that the nails of the third and 4th fingers might have been damaged by pulling from some instrument, and different accidents might have been brought on by beating.
Furthermore, Defence Witness 2 denied that he witnessed the restoration of the knife, which was allegedly identified by the convict.
Custodial torture and investigation
The Court acknowledged that the falsity of the assertion of the investigating officer (IO) was proved from the truth that he claimed that the convict was by no means crushed in custody and denied that the convict’s nails had been plucked. He admitted that the convict confessed to the crime roughly 1 hour after his arrest. His statements conflicted with the accidents discovered on the convict.
The Court additional famous that the IO acknowledged that the convict was discovered by him on 31 August 2003, however he couldn’t produce a memo of arrest earlier than the Court. In this regard, the son’s assertion that his father was arrested from the crime scene after quarrelling with the informant defined why the police didn’t make an arrest memo.
Recovery of the homicide weapon
Regarding the knife restoration, the Court famous that the witness statements for the knife restoration had been recorded two months after the alleged restoration was made. The IO couldn’t present a purpose for the delay in recording the statements.
Therefore, the Court held that the time and place of arrest, in addition to the restoration of the knife on the convict’s steerage, weren’t credible and didn’t show the prosecution’s case that the convict vanished after committing the alleged offence at midnight.
Other witnesses
As far because the statements of PWs 3 and 4 had been involved, the Court famous that the witnesses claimed that the convict confided in them that some males used to go to his home, and his youngsters knowledgeable him, which was why he dedicated the murders. They acknowledged that on the subsequent morning of the incident, the convict knowledgeable them concerning the incident and made extra-judicial confessions. The Court additional famous that each witnesses had been residents of one other village, not the convict’s village, and these statements had been recorded two months after the incident with none rationalization of the delay.
The Court acknowledged that the evidentiary worth of extra-judicial confession has been thought-about by the courts a number of instances, and it’s a weak sort of proof which can’t be accepted with out corroboration from different proof. The extra-judicial confession can’t be accepted if it suffers from a cloth discrepancy or is inherently inconceivable, which doesn’t encourage confidence within the Court. In this regard, the Court positioned reliance on Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 3 SCC 565, whereby the Supreme Court handled the difficulty of extra-judicial confession.
Considering the aforementioned judgment, the Court acknowledged that there was nothing within the statements of PWs 3 and 4 to indicate how they had been so near the convict that he confided in them on the subsequent morning that he had murdered his household. The witnesses had been additionally not any authorities authorities or revered or influential individuals of the village, who might have saved him. Additionally, the two-month-long delay in recording their statements by the police additionally raised doubts concerning the veracity of their statements made earlier than the Court. Thus, the Court held that their total conduct and statements had been uncertain and couldn’t be the premise of sustaining the conviction.
Medical Evidence
Regarding the autopsy studies, the Court famous that the studies of the deceased individuals present that each one of them suffered just one incised wound harm every on their necks. The power utilized in inflicting the solitary accidents was such that each one the underlying constructions of the neck, together with the trachea, oesophagus, vertebral columns, and spinal twine, had been lower. The measurement of the injuries exhibits that the deadly assault was made by some very heavy, sharp-edged weapon which nearly severed the necks. Therefore, the Court held that the declare that such deadly accidents had been brought on by the recovered bizarre knife didn’t sound credible.
Prior Enmity and FIR
Furthermore, the Court famous that there was enmity between the convict and informant because of a land dispute, and the informant didn’t attend a number of feasts held by the convict at his home. This enmity, together with the information that the deceased’s mother and father neither filed an FIR nor appeared within the witness field, made the Court disbelieve that the informant filed the FIR based mostly on appropriate information. Additionally, the khalu and khala who got here to the home quickly after the incident, as per the surviving son, additionally didn’t file an FIR or seem as witnesses.
Decision
Thus, the Court held that it was a grotesque homicide of a mom and her three youngsters most brutally, nevertheless it was not satisfied that the prosecution’s proof conclusively implicated and proved that the offence was dedicated by the convict. Hence, he deserved to be prolonged the advantage of the doubt.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the convict, who had been in jail for the final 23 years, shall be launched.
Before parting with this case, the Court remarked that the actual punishment of the convict had not come to an finish. His actual ordeal will start after he’s launched from jail. His mother and father and siblings will not be alive. His spouse and three youngsters have already died, and whether or not his surviving son, who should be now aged about 25-26 years, will welcome his father to his home was additionally not sure.
The Court acknowledged, “It is a sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system and requires introspection and real remedial measures like increasing number of Judges, their supporting staff, and infrastructure. There is no shortcut to the hard work required for deciding criminal appeals. Just holding conferences and meetings can never ameliorate the situation.”
[Raees v. State of U.P., CRLA No. 83 of 2005, decided on 16-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by Justice Siddharth
Advocates who appeared on this case :
For the appellant: Amit Singh, Zia Naz Zaidi, Mohammad Haddi Zaidi, and Mubasshara Siddhiqui
For the respondent: Government Advocate Pawan Kumar Srivastava
