Legal Review and Analysis of Surendra Koli vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 1308

In-Short

Case: Surendra Koli vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 1308): A landmark Supreme Court judgment allowing a curative petition and acquitting Surendra Koli, holding that a conviction based on evidence (confession and recoveries) subsequently deemed inadmissible in legally identical cases constitutes a manifest miscarriage of justice and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Legal Review and Analysis of Surendra Koli vs State of Uttar Pradesh

1. Name and Citation of the Judgment

Surendra Koli vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Curative Petition (Crl.) No. ………of 2025 @ Diary No.49297 of 2025
In Review Petition (Crl.) No.395/2014 in Criminal Appeal No.2227 of 2010
Supreme Court of India
Decided on: November 11, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1308

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment is a profound exercise of the Supreme Court's most extraordinary jurisdiction and engages with fundamental legal principles:

• The Constitution of India: Article 129 (Supreme Court as a court of record), Article 137 (Review power), Article 142 (Power to do complete justice), Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty), and Article 14 (Right to equality).

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 164 (Recording of confessions and statements).

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 24 (Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise is irrelevant), Section 27 (How much of information received from accused may be proved).

3. Basic Details of the Judgment

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Bench: Chief Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Vikram Nath

• Nature of Proceeding: A Curative Petition in a criminal case.

• Parties: The Petitioner is Surendra Koli, and the Respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh.

• Core Subject: The acquittal of Surendra Koli in the Rimpa Haldar murder case, which was part of the Nithari serial killings, based on the invalidation of evidence that was common to all related prosecutions.

4. Core Principles, Issues, and Judicial Analysis

This judgment is a landmark precedent on the exercise of the Supreme Court's curative jurisdiction to remedy a "manifest miscarriage of justice" arising from irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts on an identical set of evidence.

A. The Foundational Legal Issue: Invoking the Curative Jurisdiction

The core issue was whether the petitioner's case met the "exacting threshold" for the Supreme Court to exercise its rare curative jurisdiction. This jurisdiction, established in _Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388, is not a second review or an appeal. It is an exceptional remedy to prevent an abuse of process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice that strikes at the very legitimacy of the adjudicatory process. The Court identified the grounds for such intervention: violation of natural justice, judicial bias, or, as in this case, outcomes that are "irreconcilably inconsistent on the same substratum of facts and evidence," thereby compromising the guarantees of equality and due process under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. (Paragraphs 1-4)

B. The Factual Conundrum: Irreconcilable Verdicts

The case presented a unique and compelling situation:

• The Conviction (Rimpa Haldar Case): In 2011, the Supreme Court had affirmed Surendra Koli's conviction and death sentence in the Rimpa Haldar case, relying heavily on a confession recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

• The Subsequent Acquittals (12 Companion Cases): Between 2010 and 2021, Koli was convicted in twelve other cases stemming from the same Nithari incidents, based on the same evidentiary foundation. However, in 2023, the Allahabad High Court acquitted him in all twelve cases, holding the very same confession and recoveries to be legally unreliable and inadmissible. The Supreme Court, in July 2025, dismissed the State's appeals, giving finality to these acquittals. (Paragraphs 5-9, 16)

This created an untenable legal paradox: the same evidence was deemed sufficient for a conviction in one case but wholly insufficient in twelve other, legally indistinguishable cases.

C. The Supreme Court's Analysis: Deconstructing the Common Evidentiary Pillars

The Court conducted a comparative analysis of the evidence common to all cases and found "structural infirmities" that made the conviction in the Rimpa Haldar case unsustainable.

i. The Confession Under Section 164 CrPC

The Court found the confession to be legally tainted. Key defects included:

• Prolonged Police Custody: The petitioner was kept in uninterrupted police custody for about sixty days before the confession was recorded.

• Lack of Meaningful Legal Aid: There was no effective access to legal assistance.

• Magisterial Oversight: The recording Magistrate failed to record a clear and unqualified satisfaction regarding the voluntariness of the confession, as mandated by law.

• Investigator's Proximity: The presence and influence of the Investigating Officer during the recording process compromised the environment of voluntariness.

• Indications of Coercion: The text of the confession itself contained repeated references to tutoring and prior torture, attracting the bar under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. (Paragraphs 11, 13)

The Court held there was no principled basis to treat this same confession as voluntary in one case when it had been judicially discredited in all others.

ii. The Recoveries Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

The Court found the recovery evidence to be inadmissible. The fatal flaws were:

• No Contemporaneous Disclosure: The prosecution failed to prove any contemporaneous disclosure statement by the accused.

• Prior Public Knowledge: Evidence showed that the police and public were already aware of the recovery sites, and excavation had begun before the petitioner's alleged disclosure. This negated the core requirement of Section 27 that the information must lead to a discovery of a fact.

• Contradictory Records: There were material contradictions between the seizure memos and the remand papers. (Paragraphs 12, 14)

iii. The Forensic and Investigative Deficiencies

The Court noted critical gaps in the forensic evidence:

• No Incriminating Traces in House D-5: Extensive searches of the primary location yielded no human bloodstains, remains, or other traces consistent with the alleged multiple homicides and dismemberment inside the house.

• DNA Evidence Only for Identification: While DNA analysis helped identify the remains, it did not connect the petitioner to the criminal acts within House D-5.

• Weapons Not Connected: The alleged weapons (knife, axe) bore no human blood or tissue and were not forensically linked to the crimes.

• Botched Investigation: The investigation was criticized for its failure to secure the scene, pursue material leads (like the organ-trade angle), and ensure a fair and reliable process. (Paragraphs 13-14, 18)

5. Final Outcome and Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the curative petition. The Court held that allowing the conviction to stand on an evidentiary basis it had subsequently rejected in legally identical cases would be a "manifest miscarriage of justice" and a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court passed the following directions:

• The judgments of the Supreme Court (2011) and the Review Petition (2014) in the Rimpa Haldar case were recalled and set aside.

• The judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting the petitioner were set aside.

• The petitioner, Surendra Koli, was acquitted of all charges.

• He was ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (Paragraphs 19-23)

MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In the curative petition of Surendra Koli vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 1308), which constitutional articles were primarily invoked by the Supreme Court to justify its intervention due to inconsistent verdicts?
a) Articles 19 and 32
b) Articles 14 and 21
c) Articles 20 and 22
d) Articles 25 and 26

Question 2: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, identified a fundamental legal defect common to all Nithari cases that rendered Surendra Koli's confession inadmissible. What was the primary reason?
a) The confession was not recorded in the presence of a lawyer.
b) The confession was not signed by the accused.
c) The confession was not voluntary due to prolonged police custody and the Investigating Officer's influence.
d) The confession was recorded in a language the accused did not understand.