E-Paper
Judges, infra are the need of the hour; conferences won’t fix judicial system: Allahabad HC
The bench, comprising justice Siddharth and justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, observed that the case was a sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system and required introspection.
The Allahabad high court, commenting on the judicial system, observed that real remedial measures such as 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.
The court made this remark while acquitting a man who had spent approximately 23 years in jail on charges of the gruesome murder of his wife and three children, after concluding that the prosecution’s evidence did not conclusively prove that he committed the offense.
The bench, comprising justice Siddharth and justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, observed that the case was a sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system and required introspection.
While acquitting the accused, the bench commented that his real punishment has not come to an end, and his real ordeal will begin after his release. The bench noted: “His parents and siblings may not be alive. His wife and three children have already died and whether his surviving son, PW-2, Ajeem, who must be 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 four murders and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
However, dealing with his appeal against the conviction, the high court examined the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of the sole alleged eyewitness, Raees’s surviving five-year-old son, PW-2. The HC noted that during his cross-examination, the child 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.
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).
The bench also took into account the medical evidence, which contradicted the prosecution’s version regarding the weapon of offense. Essentially, the post-mortem reports indicated that the fatal assaults were made by a very heavy incised weapon which almost severed the necks of the deceased from their bodies.
The bench noted that this report negated the prosecution’s theory that such fatal injuries were caused by an ordinary knife, which was allegedly recovered from the appellant.
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 offense was committed by the appellant.
Hence, the bench, by an order dated February 16, acquitted the applicant by giving him the benefit of doubt and directed his release forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
