Case Citation
Full Case Name: Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1308; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2384
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: B.R. Gavai, C.J.I. Surya Kant ,J. & Vikram Nath , J.
Date of Judgement: 11 November 2025
Background of the Case
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Surendra Koli was the domestic help at House D-5, Sector 31, Nithari, Noida . The house was owned by his employer Moninder Singh Pandher. . From 2005 , the the residents of Nithari began reporting the disappearances of women and children. In late December 2006, skeletal remains, clothing and a knife were recovered from an open strip between Houses D-5 , D-6 and an adjoining compound and from a storm water drain fronting the houses. Multiple FIRs and in 2007 the CBI took over the investigation which was forensically assisted by AIIMS and CFSL. Thirteen criminal trials held due to this killings and a confession statement recorded under section 164 CrPC and disclosure recovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to death in the Rimpa Haldar case on 13 February 2009 which was confirmed by the Allahabad High court on 11 September 2009. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the review petition in 2014. On 28 January 2015 the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In the other twelve Nithari Cases, the High court acquitted the petitioner on 16 October 2023. The State challenged these acquittals before Supreme Court but the appeals were dismissed on 30 July 2025 which confirmed the acquittals. Since the petitioner was acquitted in twelve cases based on the same evidence but remain convicted in the Rimpa Haldar Case, he filed the curative petition limited to the conviction in accordance with Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Relevant Chronology
11th November 2025: Supreme Court allows the curative petition and acquits the petitioner in the Rimpa Haldar case .
2005-06 : Disappearances reported and the remains were recovered at Nithari, Noida.
2007: Investigation transferred to CBI , Forensic examination by AIIMS and CFSL.
13th February 2009 : Trial Court convicts and sentences death .
11th September 2009 : Allahabad High Court confirms conviction and sentence.
2011: Supreme Court affirms conviction and death sentence, (2011) 4 SCC 80.
2014: Review petition dismissed .
28th January 2015: Death Sentence commuted to life imprisonment .
16th October 2023: High Court acquits petitioner on twelve companion Nithari Cases.
30th July 2025 : Supreme Court dismisses State’s appeals, affirming the twelve acquittals
Issues Involved
Whether the disclosure based recoveries satisfied section 27 of the Evidence Act .
Whether the curative petition met the threshold in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Order XLVIII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Whether two Supreme Court outcomes, The 2011 affirmance of conviction and 2025 affirmance of acquittal in twelve companion cases resting on an identical evidentiary foundation could lawfully coesixt.
Whether the section 164 CrPC confession met the voluntary standard for admissibility under section 24 of the Evidence Act.
Legal provisions applied
Article 14,21,129,137 and 142 : Article 21 protects a person from being convicted on evidence that has already been found not reliable by the courts where as Article 14 requires similar cases based on the same evidence to have consistent outcomes. Articles 129, 137 and 142 empower the Supreme Court to review its own judgements and ensure justice by its curative jurisdiction.
Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 24 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: These provisions deal with the admissibility of confessions and recovery of evidence based on the disclosure made bye the accused which formed the main basis of the prosecution’s case.
Section 302,364,376 and 201 of Indian Penal Code: These was the offences under which the petitioner was convicted before being acquitted by the Supreme Court.
Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: This rule lays down the procedure and requirements for filling a curative petition.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra: This landmark case established the concept of curative petition as an exceptional remedy to correct serious miscarriage of justice even after review petition has been dismissed.
Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011): This was the earlier Supreme Court judgement that upheld the conviction.
Reasoning of the Court
At first the court addressed maintainability holding that the petition met the requirements of Order XLVIII and was properly placed before the bench. So the threshold for curative jurisdiction was satisfied. Following Rupa Ashok Hurra, the Court reiterated that curative relief exist to avert injustice and clarified that this was not re appreciation of evidence in a second appeal but a correction of structural inconsistency threatening the integrity of adjudication .
The bench tested the Rimpa Haldar conviction against the High Court and later the supreme court discard the evidence in the twelve companion matters. The Court stated that the confession had been recorded after 60 days of being in the custody without any allocation of legal aid. The recording Magistrate had not certified clear satisfaction of voluntariness and the Investigating officer compromised the required atmosphere. The statement made by the accused indicated torture and coercion which is inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act.
The prosecution had failed to prove any contemporaneous disclosure memorandum regarding the recoveries. The seizure memorandum also contradicted with the remand records. which showed that both accused had made a joint disclosure. However the police and public were already aware of the location where the remains were found before the alleged disclosure was made by the accused. As a result, the recoveries couldn’t be treated as a discovery made because of the statement made by the accused. Therefore section 27 of Evidence Act didn’t apply here. Furthermore, forensic examination of house D5 found no blood stains or human remains to support the allegations that the victims were murdered and dismembered here. Although DNA analysis confirmed the identity of the victims but it didn’t prove that the petitioner had committed the murders.
All these things led to the acquittal in the other twelve Nithari Cases. The supreme court held that the legal outcome could not be different when the evidence was identical. The court observed that the continuing the conviction in the evidence which already has rejected would violated Article 21 and would also amount to violation of Article 14. The judgement was delivered by a bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath without any dissent. The court also expressed regret that lapse in investigation and long delay had left the actual perpetrator identify unascertained.
JUDGEMENT
The Court allowed the curative petition and set aside it’s 2011 judgement and the 2014 review dismissal. It also set aside the Trial Court’ s conviction and the High Court’s confirmation. The Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner under sections 302, 364,376 and 201 while quashing all sentences and fines. It directed the immediate release of the petitioner.
CASE ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court recognised that a conviction cannot be upheld in one case when the same evidence has already been rejected in other cases. The court expanded the practical scope of the principle laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra by granting curative relief. It also reaffirmed that Articles 14 and 21 Apply even to the supreme court’s own final judgment. The Court’s reasoning regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence is legally sound. It rightly held that a confession recorded under section 164 of CrPC is unacceptable when the accused had been kept in prolonged police custody without any legal assistance and the Magistrate fails to ensure that the confession was made voluntarily. Similarly the court has rightly applied the rule under section 27 of the Evidence Act that only disclosure leading to the discovery of a previously unknown fact is admissible as an evidence .
However the judgement sends a mixed message to the society. At one hand it shows that the justice system can correct serious mistakes and protect the rights of the accused person even after many years. On the other hand it also reveals how slow and inconsistent the system can be which cause distress to the family of victims . The case highlights the importance of following proper investigation procedure otherwise convictions may not survive the judicial scrutiny.
At the same time , it exposes the failure is the criminal justice system to provide timely and reliable justice in serious crime which may reduce public confidence. The judgement supports mandatory video recording of interrogations and confessions, improved Forensic investigations, faster trials. Most importantly, the victim’s families still deserve to know who actually committed the crimes if the petitioner was not responsible. Although, this acquittal has ended the legal proceedings but it leaves important moral and investigative questions unanswered.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY Y JOHN SAMUEL FROM SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY
REFERENCES :
Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 803.
Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 1308 (Supreme Court of India, Nov. 11, 2025).
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388.
Constitution of India, arts. 14, 21, 129, 137, & 142.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 164.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §§ 24 & 27.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §§ 201, 302, 364, & 376.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XLVIII.
Sucheta. (2025, November 12). Surendra Koli’s acquittal in the 13th criminal case connected to Nithari killings: Inside Supreme Court verdict. SCC Online Blog. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/11/12/supreme-court-acquits-nithari-killings-accused-surendra-koli/�
LaWGiCo. (2025, November). Supreme Court acquits Surendra Koli in Nithari case; Curative Bench finds confession and recoveries legally unreliable. https://lawgico.in/law-updates/supreme-court-acquits-surendra-koli-in-nithari-case-curative-bench-finds-confession-and-recoveries-legally-unreliable/
