Author: Krishna Gawade

Court: Supreme Court Of India 

Date of the Judgement: 11/11/2025

Case Type: Curative Petition 

Bench: B.R. Gavai (CJI), Surya Kanta, Vikram Nath 

Relevant Provision: Article 14, 21, 129, 137, 142 and 145 of The Constitution of India, Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Section 24 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 201, 302, 364 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Order XLVIII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court (hereinafter SC) exercised its curative jurisdiction to address a grave miscarriage of justice in the Nithari Serial Killing Case, one of India’s most notorious criminal cases. The court gave very unexpected decision that people around India showed great disappointment after the final verdict.  

Brief Facts 

Surender Koli, the petitioner, was a house help in house D-5, Sector 31, Nithari Village, Noida, owned by Moninder Singh Pandher. Petitioner was arrested in 2006 following multiple FIRs of missing reports of children and women from the nearby area, and human remains were also recovered near D-5. In 2007, CBI took charge of the investigation. For forensic investigation, AIIMS and CFSL helped CBI. 13 cases were filed against Koli, and Pandher was a co-accused in 2 of the cases from these 13 cases 

One of these cases was Rimpa Haldar case, a minor who went missing in 2005, Koli was convicted by the trial court in February 2009 under Section 302, 364, 376 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to death, the confession under section 164 of CrPC, recovery of remains, DNA matching and identification of the victim’s clothes were taken into consideration for the punishment given to Koli. 

The Allahabad High Court (hereinafter HC) acquitted Pandher and upheld Surender’s conviction and death sentence. In February 2011, SC considered it the rarest of rare and affirmed the conviction and death penalty. The review petition filed by Koli was dismissed in 2014, but in January 2015, the HC commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. In October 2023, the HC allowed petitions filed by Koli in 12 cases and acquitted him in all of them. 

Issue Raised 

• Can two sets of outcomes of this Court stand together when they rest on an identical evidentiary foundation? 

Petitioner’s Argument

• In this matter, Koli filed a curative petition. Petitioner argued that “manifest miscarriage of justice” has occurred as the confession under Section 164 of CrPC was involuntary as it was obtained after 60 days of uninterrupted police custody. 
• Petitioner also questioned the reliability of evidence as people and police were already present at the place where evidences found, so it cannot be considered as “discovery” made by Koli’s directions. 
• The most critical and Significant argument made by the petitioner was about “arbitrary disparity” in outcomes. The SC acquitted Koli in 12 other Nithari cases, except for Rimpa Haldar, upholding HC’s decision on the grounds of the same confession and evidences found, which were considered unreliable and on the other hand The SC gave a death sentence for the Rimpa Haldar case, which is also based on a similar evidentiary foundation. This violates fundamental rights Article 14 and 21 of the petitioner. 

Respondent’s Argument 

• The prosecution (respondent) argued on behalf of the finality of the SC’s decision, as the review petition filed by Koli was also dismissed, and curative jurisdiction has its restricted power which can be used only when there is a “grave mistake” in decision making. 
• The respondent also highlighted the nature of the crimes committed by the accused, which were heinous and dangerous in nature, deserving no mercy. This case falls under the rarest of rare category, and the conviction of the criminal must be affirmed. 
• The evidence, which is considered as involuntary and unreliable now were accepted by the trial court and even by supreme court in previous judgements, and the state demanded that the apex court to stick to it’s previous decision and upheld the conviction of Surender Koli. 

Judgement 

The court agreed with the petitioner that “manifest miscarriage of justice” has occurred in the case, and considering previous judgements on the case given by the HC and SC, it undermines the integrity of judicial decision-making. In 2011, the SC affirmed the petitioner’s conviction, and in 2025, it affirmed his acquittal in the 12 Nithari cases, when both the decisions were based on an identical evidentiary foundation of confession and evidences recovered. It shows a fundamental defect in the adjudicatory process. 

In the 12 Nithari cases where Koli was acquitted of all the charges, it was proved that the confession was involuntary as the accused was in police custody for 60 days and was under the influence of the investigating officer, which attracted the bar under section 24 of the Evidence Act. And hence the confession was inadmissible. The alleged discoveries were rejected as it was not genuine discoveries, police and people in the area were present before the accused could take the police near the location.

The court held that ‘The DNA work undertaken by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics linked certain remains to families of missing persons but did not connect the Petitioner to the actus reus within D-5.’ The court understands that the sufferings of the victim’s families are beyond measure. The court expressed it’s regret that even after a prolonged investigation, the criminal who did these heinous crimes is still not convicted.

The court stated that allowing the conviction would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution, as the cases must rest on fair, admissible and reliable evidence. Accordingly, the court set aside the earlier judgments and acquitted the petitioner from all the charges and quashed all the sentences. Holding that suspicion, however grave, cannot be used as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Personal Commentary

In my opinion, this case is a great example of how badly negligent behaviour can affect and hamper society in great extent. Hence, it is a time to open the eyes of the system and improve the quality of investigation. People around the whole India expressed their disappointment after the acquittal of Koli and Padher. We as a nation fail when we cannot do justice; we can’t do anything to criminals who are around us, just because we can’t prove their crime or criminal nature. But this does an injustice to so many people, and that’s somewhat disheartening. If Koli in these 13 cases is a true offender, then again, one criminal will roam on the roads just like a common man without the guilt of his heinous crimes, and if he is not a real offender, then the actual criminal is living his life peacefully amidst us for the past 10 years. In both cases, it is a loss of society and not just of one individual. After the whole fight of 10 years of those innocents, the justice is not yet served to them! 

Reference:  

MANU/SC/1521/2025