EVIDENCE — Section 27 Evidence Act — Discoveries/recoveries — Discoveries inadmissible where contemporaneous disclosure memo not proved, contradictions exist between panchnama and remand papers, public/police already aware of remains and excavation preceded accused’s arrival — essential element of ‘discovery by accused’ absent and Section 27 inapplicable. (Paras 8.2–8.4, 12) FORENSICS & INVESTIGATION — Absence of incriminating forensic linkage — Expert searches of D-5 yielded no bloodstains or transfer patterns consistent with alleged in-house homicides/dismemberment; exhibited implements bore no blood/tissue; DNA linked remains to families but did not prove actus reus by petitioner within D-5 — forensic lacunae undermine circumstantial chain. (Paras 8.4–8.5, 13–14)

2025 INSC 1308
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 1 of 26
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ..……….OF 2025
@DIARY NO.49297 OF 2025
IN
R.P. (CRL.) NO.395/2014
IN
CRL. A. NO.2227 OF 2010
SURENDRA KOLI …PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH,J.

1. Delay condoned.
   This curative petition presents an exceptional case for the exercise of our curative jurisdiction. …”

II. HEADNOTES 

CRIMINAL LAW — Curative Petition — Nithari prosecutions — Inherent jurisdiction —
Curative jurisdiction (Order XLVIII, Sup. Ct. Rules, Rupa Ashok Hurra) invoked where irreconcilable and inconsistent outcomes have arisen on identical evidentiary substratum across companion prosecutions; where manifest miscarriage of justice and fundamental defects in process (involuntary Section 164 statements; inadmissible Section 27 recoveries; botched investigation) offend Articles 14 & 21 — curative relief granted and conviction set aside. (Paras 1–4, 9–16, 19–23)

EVIDENCE — Section 164 CrPC confessions — Voluntariness —
Confession recorded after prolonged police custody (~60 days), without meaningful legal aid, with Investigating Officer’s proximate presence and text showing tutoring/coercion attracts bar under Section 24 Evidence Act; such confession cannot be treated as voluntary where companion matters so hold. (Paras 7.1–7.4, 8.2, 11–12)

EVIDENCE — Section 27 Evidence Act — Discoveries/recoveries —
Discoveries inadmissible where contemporaneous disclosure memo not proved, contradictions exist between panchnama and remand papers, public/police already aware of remains and excavation preceded accused’s arrival — essential element of ‘discovery by accused’ absent and Section 27 inapplicable. (Paras 8.2–8.4, 12)

FORENSICS & INVESTIGATION — Absence of incriminating forensic linkage —
Expert searches of D-5 yielded no bloodstains or transfer patterns consistent with alleged in-house homicides/dismemberment; exhibited implements bore no blood/tissue; DNA linked remains to families but did not prove actus reus by petitioner within D-5 — forensic lacunae undermine circumstantial chain. (Paras 8.4–8.5, 13–14)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Articles 14 & 21 — Equality and fair procedure —
Where identical evidentiary foundation produces discordant ultimate results in companion prosecutions, the disparity offends equality and due process; conviction cannot stand where companion matters authoritatively reject the same pillars of proof. (Paras 10, 15–16)

RELIEF — Curative jurisdiction exercised —
Curative petition allowed; prior judgments (15.02.2011; 28.10.2014) recalled and set aside; Criminal Appeal No.2227/2010 allowed; trial and appellate judgments set aside; petitioner acquitted and to be released forthwith if not required in other matters. (Paras 19–23)

III. CASE-FACTS 

1. Petitioner Surendra Koli employed as domestic help at House D-5, Sector-31, Noida (employer Moninder Singh Pandher). From early 2005 reports of missing women and children in Nithari; human remains discovered in open strip between D-5 and D-6 and in stormwater drain (paras 6.1–6.3).

2. Petitioner taken into custody on 29.12.2006 in connection with FIR No. 838/2006 (disappearance of Rimpa Haldar). Multiple skulls/bones and clothing recovered on 29–31.12.2006; a knife recovered from beneath terrace water tank of D-5 (paras 6.2–6.3).

3. Investigation transferred to CBI on 09.01.2007; forensic teams (FSL Agra, AIIMS, CFSL) examined D-5 and surroundings through mid-January 2007 (para 6.3).

4. Trial Court (Sessions Trial No.611/2007) convicted petitioner (13.02.2009) for offences under Sections 302, 364, 376, 201 IPC and imposed death sentence — relied on confession recorded 01.03.2007 under Section 164 CrPC, recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act, circumstantial chain, and DNA matches (paras 7.1–7.3).

5. High Court (11.09.2009) affirmed conviction and death sentence, treating Section 164 confession as voluntary and finding corroboration in recoveries, identifications and DNA evidence (para 7.2).

6. This Court (two-Judge Bench) dismissed Criminal Appeal No.2227/2010 on 15.02.2011 — upheld voluntariness and admissibility of confession and recoveries; case characterised as “rarest of rare” (para 7.3). Review petition dismissed on 28.10.2014 (para 7.4). Death sentence commuted to life by High Court on 28.01.2015 (para 7.5).

7. Petitioner tried in twelve companion matters founded on the same confession and recovery architecture; by judgments dated 16.10.2023 High Court acquitted petitioner in those matters — held Section 164 statements involuntary and Section 27 recoveries inadmissible; investigative and forensic deficiencies found (paras 8.1–8.5).

8. State appeals against those acquittals dismissed by this Court on 30.07.2025 (three-Judge Bench), rendering the twelve acquittals final (para 8.6).

9. The curative petition invokes irreconcilable outcomes on identical evidentiary substratum — this Court’s earlier affirmation (15.02.2011) co-exists with later final acquittals rejecting the same foundational proof (paras 5, 9–11).

IV. HELD / ORDERS 

1. Curative jurisdiction invoked — The petition meets the narrow threshold under Rupa Ashok Hurra: the earlier decision produced outcomes irreconcilable with subsequent final acquittals on the same evidence and raised fundamental defects in process affecting voluntariness and admissibility. (Paras 1–4, 9–11)

2. Section 164 confession tainted — The petitioner’s statement (recorded after ~60 days’ custody without meaningful legal aid; presence/proximity of Investigating Officer; textual references to tutoring/coercion; Magistrate did not record required satisfaction) attracts bar under Section 24 Evidence Act and is legally inadmissible as voluntary confession in light of companion judgments. (Paras 11–12)

3. Section 27 discoveries unreliable — Contemporaneous disclosure was not proved; contradictions between panchnama and remand papers; public/police knowledge and excavation prior to petitioner’s arrival negate essential element of discovery by accused; Section 27 thus inapplicable. (Paras 12)

4. Forensic & investigative lacunae — Expert searches of D-5 did not reveal bloodstains/transfer patterns consistent with in-house dismemberment; implements lacked blood/tissue; DNA linked remains to families but did not establish petitioner’s actus reus within D-5; investigation found botched and incomplete. (Paras 8.4–8.5, 13–14)

5. Conviction unsustainable — Removal of confession and Section 27 recoveries collapses the circumstantial chain; conviction cannot be sustained without departing from principles applied in companion matters; leaving conviction in place would offend Articles 14 & 21. (Paras 15–16)

6. Relief granted — Curative petition allowed. Judgment dated 15.02.2011 and Review order 28.10.2014 recalled and set aside. Criminal Appeal No.2227/2010 allowed; Sessions Trial No.611/2007 judgment and High Court judgment dated 11.09.2009 set aside. Petitioner acquitted of Sections 302, 364, 376, 201 IPC; sentences and fines quashed. Petitioner to be released forthwith if not required in other proceedings. Registry to communicate order to jail/trial court for immediate compliance. (Paras 19–24)

7. Ancillary orders — Related SLPs arising from commutation order disposed as infructuous; pending applications disposed. (Paras 24–25)