Supreme Court Exercises Curative Jurisdiction, Acquits Surendra Koli in Nithari Case Citing ‘Manifest Miscarriage of Justice’

The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on November 11, 2025, exercised its exceptional curative jurisdiction to acquit Surendra Koli in one of the Nithari serial murder cases (the Rimpa Haldar case). The Court, in Curative Petition (Crl.) No. @Diary No. 49297 of 2025, set aside its own previous judgments, holding that a “manifest miscarriage of justice” had occurred.

The core legal issue was that Koli’s conviction in this case stood on the exact same evidentiary foundation—a confessional statement and alleged recoveries—that had been rejected as “legally unreliable” and “inadmissible” in twelve other companion cases, in which Koli had been acquitted.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Vikram Nath, was authored by Justice Nath and found that “two sets of outcomes resting on the same evidentiary foundation cannot lawfully coexist.”

Background of the Nithari Case

As recited in the judgment, Surendra Koli was a domestic help at House D5, Sector 31, Noida, owned by Moninder Singh Pandher. In 2005, residents of Nithari began reporting missing women and children. On December 29, 2006, local police took Koli into custody in connection with the disappearance of one of the victims.

On the same day, multiple skulls and bones were recovered from an open strip between House D5 and D6. Further human remains were recovered from a stormwater drain on December 31, 2006. The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on January 9, 2007.

Thirteen trials followed, each proceeding on a common evidentiary foundation: Koli’s alleged disclosure leading to recoveries and his confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Procedural History: The Rimpa Haldar Case

The present curative petition arose from the case concerning the death of Rimpa Haldar.

1. Trial Court: On February 13, 2009, the Trial Court convicted Koli under Sections 302, 364, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposed the death sentence. The conviction was based on the Section 164 confession and recoveries made at his instance.
2. High Court: On September 11, 2009, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirmed the conviction and death sentence, treating the confession as “voluntary and reliable.” It acquitted the co-accused, Moninder Singh Pandher, in this case.
3. Supreme Court (First Round): On February 15, 2011, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed Koli’s appeal (Crl. A. No. 2227 of 2010), affirming the conviction. The Court found the confession voluntary and the case to be in the “rarest of rare” category.
4. Review: On October 28, 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.
5. Commutation: Subsequently, on January 28, 2015, the High Court commuted the death sentence in this case to life imprisonment, but the conviction itself remained.

The Twelve Companion Cases: A Contradictory Outcome

While the Rimpa Haldar case conviction was finalized, Koli was tried and convicted in twelve other capital cases based on the same evidentiary foundation.

However, in a set of judgments dated October 16, 2023, the High Court allowed Koli’s appeals in all twelve of those matters and acquitted him. The High Court held:

• Confession Unreliable: The confession under Section 164 CrPC was not voluntary. The High Court noted Koli was in uninterrupted police custody for about sixty days, had no meaningful access to legal aid, and the Investigating Officer’s proximity to the recording “undermined voluntariness.” The court found the bar under Section 24 of the Evidence Act was attracted.
• Recoveries Inadmissible: The alleged discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were “inadmissible and unreliable.” The High Court found no contemporaneous disclosure statement was proved, and the evidence showed the public and police “were already aware of body parts at the recovery site” before Koli arrived.
• No Forensic Corroboration: Expert searches of D-5 “did not yield human bloodstains or human remains.” The DNA analysis only linked remains to families but “did not connect the petitioner to the actus reus within D-5.”

On July 30, 2025, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeals against these acquittals, making the findings in the twelve cases final.

Supreme Court’s Analysis in the Curative Petition

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had met the high threshold for its curative jurisdiction, as established in Rupa Ashok Hurra ν. Ashok Hurra. The Court stated the petition presented an “exceptional case” and that intervention ex debito justitiae (as a matter of right) was a “constitutional duty” to “vindicate the rule of law.”

The judgment identified the “determinative question” as “whether two sets of outcomes of this Court can stand together when they rest on an identical evidentiary foundation.”

Applying the legal findings from the twelve acquittals to the Rimpa Haldar case, the Court found:

1. On the Confession: “We find no principled basis on which the same statement can be treated as voluntary and reliable in this case when it has been judicially discredited in all others.” The Court held that the confession, tainted by prolonged custody and procedural lapses, was “inadmissible as a matter of law.”
2. On the Recoveries: The Court found that the same legal defects—no contemporaneous memo, prior knowledge of the site, and contradictions—applied here. “These features negate the essential element of discovery by the accused… The legal conclusion cannot change from case to case when the premise is identical.”
3. On Constitutional Violations: The Court held that allowing the conviction to stand “offends Article 21 of the Constitution” (right to life and fair procedure) and “violates Article 14… since like cases must be treated alike.”

The Court also agreed with the High Court’s critique of the investigation as “botched and shifting,” noting failures such as not securing the scene and neglecting “material avenues of inquiry, including the organ-trade angle.”

The judgment observed, “Criminal law does not permit conviction on conjecture or on a hunch. Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

Decision and Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the curative petition and passed the following orders:

1. The judgment dated 15.02.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 and the review order dated 28.10.2014 were “recalled and set aside.”
2. Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 was allowed.
3. The judgments of the Trial Court (13.02.2009) and the High Court (11.09.2009) in this case were set aside.
4. The petitioner, Surendra Koli, was “acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the IPC.”
5. The Court ordered that Koli “shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case or proceeding.”