A man convicted of killing his wife and three children in 2003 has been acquitted by the Allahabad High Court after spending nearly 23 years in prison, with the court holding that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench of Justices Siddharth and Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside the conviction of Raees in its February 16 judgment, observing that the case exposed serious shortcomings in the criminal justice process and required “introspection” at a systemic level.
Raees had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court on four counts of murder. According to the prosecution, he slit the throats of his wife and their three children on the night of August 29–30, 2003, following a domestic dispute. The FIR was lodged by the deceased woman’s uncle.
While hearing the appeal, the High Court closely examined the prosecution’s case, including the testimony of the sole alleged eyewitness — the couple’s surviving son, Ajeem, who was five years old at the time.
During cross-examination, the witness stated that his earlier statements had been tutored at the instance of the informant and a government lawyer. He also said he had been threatened with eviction from the informant’s house if he did not depose as instructed. The Bench held that this seriously undermined the credibility of the testimony.
The court also noted that there was an existing land dispute between the informant and the accused, which cast doubt on the informant’s motives.
The Bench further found inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the prosecution’s claim regarding the weapon used in the crime.
Postmortem reports indicated that the victims’ necks were almost severed by a “very heavy incised weapon.” This, the court said, was incompatible with the prosecution’s case that the injuries were caused by an ordinary knife allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused.
In light of these contradictions, the court held that the evidence did not conclusively establish that the offence was committed by the appellant.
Benefit of Doubt, Immediate Release Ordered
Granting the benefit of doubt, the High Court acquitted Raees and directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The Bench described the matter as a “sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system,” stressing the need for “real remedial measures like increasing the number of judges, their supporting staff and infrastructure,” and observing that conferences and meetings alone would not improve the situation.
Even as it ordered his release, the court reflected on the personal consequences of the prolonged incarceration, remarking that Raees’s “real ordeal will begin after his release.”
It noted that his parents and siblings might no longer be alive, his wife and three children had died, and it was uncertain whether his surviving son — now about 25–26 years old — would accept him.
Calling the killings “gruesome” and “brutal,” the Bench nonetheless held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond doubt, making acquittal inevitable under the law.
