Allahabad High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted of the murder of his wife and children, the Division Bench of Siddharth* and Jai Krishna Upadhyay, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution’s evidence did not conclusively implicate and prove that the offence was committed by the convict.
Background
The convict was married to the niece of the complainant (deceased), and they had four children together, two sons and two daughters. On 30 August 2003, the complainant received information that the convict had murdered his wife and three children. Upon receipt of this information, he and the father of the deceased wife, along with the villagers, reached the convict’s village to inquire about the incident. The villagers informed that the previous night, the convict had an altercation with his deceased, which led to him murdering her and his three children by stabbing. The only survivor was the 5-year-old son, who said that his father killed his mother and siblings. The dead bodies were found in the courtyard of the house, and the convict had fled the scene. Accordingly, a case was registered against the convict.
Upon analysis of the post-mortem reports and other evidence, the trial court convicted him under Section 302, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Hence, the present appeal.
Analysis
Informant’s statement
At the outset, the Court noted that Prosecution Witnesses (PWs) 1 and 2 were the witnesses of the incident, whereas PWs 3 and 4 were witnesses before whom the convict made extra-judicial confessions. PW 1 was the informant who could not tell who informed him about the murders and claimed that an unknown person informed him at 5 a.m. that his niece and her three children were murdered the previous night between 12 to 1 a.m. PW 2, the surviving son, claimed that his khalu/mausa/uncle informed the informant on the phone and asked him to come to their village. Thus, the Court stated that the informant’s statement that he received information in his village from an unknown person did not seem to be correct.
The Court further noted that the surviving son stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of the murder of his mother and siblings, he was in his house and had hidden himself. He stated that after committing the murder, his father/convict left the house; thereafter, his khala/mausi/aunt came to the house, and he came out from hiding.
The Court remarked that it was notable that the informant was the uncle of the deceased, and her parents were alive, but they did not file an FIR against their son-in-law. In his cross-examination, the informant admitted that apart from the parents of the deceased, her three brothers were also present, but none of them lodged the FIR or stepped into the witness box to prove the case against the convict.
Furthermore, the informant claimed that when he reached the crime scene, the father of the deceased and his other brother, mother of the deceased, nephew, etc., a total of 20 persons had already reached, and the villagers gathered informed the family that the murders had occurred due to a matrimonial quarrel. During cross-examination, the informant could not name even one such villager, who informed him that a quarrel had taken place between the convict and the deceased on the fateful night.
Surviving son’s statement
Upon examination of the survivor son’s statement, the Court noted that in his examination-in-chief, he stated that he saw the incident with his own eyes, how his mother and siblings were murdered by his father with a knife, and he hid himself, only to come out when his khala came. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted to the following:
-
He was residing with the informant and his wife, who gave him delicious food to eat and good clothes to wear, but he was not studying.
-
The informant directed him to give a statement in the Court as per his directions; he would be ousted from the house.
-
The informant took him to the house of their private advocate and government advocate for tutoring him, and he had given tutored statements before the Court.
-
His khalu lives with his khala, and their house is situated at a distance of ten steps from his house.
-
At the time of the incident, his mother raised an alarm, and more than 50 people gathered, including his khalu and khala.
-
His father/convict, sells husk as a contractor in another district, and on the day of the incident, his father had gone to sell the same in a tractor. After the incident, the convict was informed on the phone, and he reached the house at about 9 or 10 a.m. the next day, and wept holding the dead bodies.
-
When the convict came, the informant was present there, and abuses took place between them, which led to the informant getting the convict arrested by the police.
-
His father/convict, was badly beaten by the police, and his nails were plucked.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that if the son’s statement was read with the convict’s statement, it was found that the convict stated that at the time of the incident, he had gone to sell husk outside the village. The convict also stated that he had been implicated in the case due to enmity with the informant. Additionally, the Court noted that the jail doctor who medically examined the convict admitted that the nails of the 3rd and 4th fingers could have been broken by pulling from some tool, and other injuries could have been caused by beating.
Furthermore, Defence Witness 2 denied that he witnessed the recovery of the knife, which was allegedly pointed out by the convict.
Custodial torture and investigation
The Court stated that the falsity of the statement of the investigating officer (IO) was proved from the fact that he claimed that the convict was never beaten in custody and denied that the convict’s nails were plucked. He admitted that the convict confessed to the crime approximately 1 hour after his arrest. His statements conflicted with the injuries found on the convict.
The Court further noted that the IO stated that the convict was found by him on 31 August 2003, but he could not produce a memo of arrest before the Court. In this regard, the son’s statement that his father was arrested from the crime scene after quarrelling with the informant explained why the police did not make an arrest memo.
Recovery of the murder weapon
Regarding the knife recovery, the Court noted that the witness statements for the knife recovery were recorded two months after the alleged recovery was made. The IO could not provide a reason for the delay in recording the statements.
Therefore, the Court held that the time and place of arrest, as well as the recovery of the knife on the convict’s guidance, were not credible and did not prove the prosecution’s case that the convict vanished after committing the alleged offence at midnight.
Other witnesses
As far as the statements of PWs 3 and 4 were concerned, the Court noted that the witnesses claimed that the convict confided in them that some men used to visit his house, and his children informed him, which was why he committed the murders. They stated that on the next morning of the incident, the convict informed them about the incident and made extra-judicial confessions. The Court further noted that both witnesses were residents of another village, not the convict’s village, and these statements were recorded two months after the incident without any explanation of the delay.
The Court stated that the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession has been considered by the courts several times, and it is a weak type of evidence which cannot be accepted without corroboration from other evidence. The extra-judicial confession cannot be accepted if it suffers from a material discrepancy or is inherently improbable, which does not inspire confidence in the Court. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 3 SCC 565, wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of extra-judicial confession.
Considering the aforementioned judgment, the Court stated that there was nothing in the statements of PWs 3 and 4 to show how they were so close to the convict that he confided in them on the next morning that he had murdered his family. The witnesses were also not any government authorities or respected or influential persons of the village, who could have saved him. Additionally, the two-month-long delay in recording their statements by the police also raised doubts about the veracity of their statements made before the Court. Thus, the Court held that their overall conduct and statements were doubtful and could not be the basis of sustaining the conviction.
Medical Evidence
Regarding the post-mortem reports, the Court noted that the reports of the deceased persons show that all of them suffered only one incised wound injury each on their necks. The force applied in inflicting the solitary injuries was such that all the underlying structures of the neck, including the trachea, oesophagus, vertebral columns, and spinal cord, were cut. The size of the wounds shows that the fatal assault was made by some very heavy, sharp-edged weapon which almost severed the necks. Therefore, the Court held that the claim that such fatal injuries were caused by the recovered ordinary knife did not sound credible.
Prior Enmity and FIR
Furthermore, the Court noted that there was enmity between the convict and informant due to a land dispute, and the informant did not attend several feasts held by the convict at his house. This enmity, along with the facts that the deceased’s parents neither filed an FIR nor appeared in the witness box, made the Court disbelieve that the informant filed the FIR based on correct facts. Additionally, the khalu and khala who came to the house soon after the incident, as per the surviving son, also did not file an FIR or appear as witnesses.
Decision
Thus, the Court held that it was a gruesome murder of a mother and her three children most brutally, but it was not convinced that the prosecution’s evidence conclusively implicated and proved that the offence was committed by the convict. Hence, he deserved to be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the convict, who had been in jail for the last 23 years, shall be released.
Before parting with this case, the Court remarked that the real punishment of the convict had not come to an end. His real ordeal will begin after he is released from jail. His parents and siblings may not be alive. His wife and three children have already died, and whether his surviving son, who must be now aged about 25-26 years, will welcome his father to his house was also not certain.
The Court stated, “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 in this case :
For the appellant: Amit Singh, Zia Naz Zaidi, Mohammad Haddi Zaidi, and Mubasshara Siddhiqui
For the respondent: Government Advocate Pawan Kumar Srivastava