SURENDRA KOLIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                     [2011) 2 S.C.R. 939


                                                                    A
                       SURENDRA KOU
                               v.
                 STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
             (Criminal Appeal No.2227 of 2010)
                     FEBRUARY 15, 2011                              8
 [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 :

       s.302 - Gruesome murder - Accused charged for                C
 murdering young girls and several other cht1dren - A/legation
. that accused used to lure young children inside the house
  where he would strangulate them and cut off their body parts
  and eat them - Conviction by courts below uls. 302 and award
  of death sentence - Held: The accused had made a voluntary        D
  confession before the Magistrate u/s. 164 Cr. P. C. - The
  confession u/s. 164 was corroborated in material particulars -
  The accused volunteered to feed the police team to the
  specific spot where he had hidden the articles/body parts -
  On his pointing out, 15 skulls and bones were recovered and       E
  also a knife was recovered from a water tank - Some body
  parts, clothes and slippers thrown in the enclosed gallery
  behind the house were also recovered - DNA test of victim
  matched with that o' her parents and brother - The entire
  chain of circumstances connected the accused with the crime       F
  and was established by the prosecution beyond reasonable
  doubt - The killings by the accused were horrifying and
  barbaric - Case fell within the category of rarest of rare case
  - Conviction and death sentence upheld.

     Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1982 SCC 689; Atbir          G
vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2010 sec (9) 1- relied on


                              939
                                                                    H
    940      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A                           Case Law Reference:
          1982 sec 689               Relied on             Para 14
          201 o sec (9) 1            Relied on             Para 14
B       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 2227 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 11.9.2009 of the High
    Court of Uttar Pradesh, judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
    (Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 & R. No. 3 of 2009.
c
                                  WITH

    SLP (Crl.) No. 608 of 2010.

      Vivek K. Thanka, ASG, Ratnakar Dash, Shail Kr. Dwivedi,
D AAG, Dr. Sushil Balwada, AC, T.A. Khan, Pratul Shandilya,
  Sumeer Sodhi, Vaibhav Srivastava, Kumnan D., Arvind Kumar
  Sharma, Harsh, B.P. Singh Dhakray, Shakti Singh Dhakray,
  D.B. Vohra, Rajeev K. Dubay, Kamlendra Mishra, Manisha
  Bhadari, Omkar Shrivastava (for Madhu Moolchandani) for the
E appearing parties.

          The following order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER

F       1. Heard Dr. Sushil Balwada, learned counsel, who has
    appeared for the appellant Surendra Koli in Criminal Appeal
    No. 2227 of 2010.

       2. The appellant Surendra Koli, accused no. 2 and
G Maninder Singh Pandher accused no. 1 were convicted under
  Section 302/364/376 IPC by the Special Sessions trial no. 611
  of 2007 decided on 13.02.2009 by Additional Sessions Judge,
  Ghaziabad, U.P. By that judgment death sentence was
  imposed on both these accused.
H
    SURENDRA KOLi v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.              941


     3. In Appeal/Reference to the High Court accused            A
 Surendra Koli's death sentence was affirmed while the accused
 Maninder Singh Pandher was acquitted. Hence, Surendra Koli
-has filed this Appeal before us.
    4. The facts of this case are gruesome and horrifying. It
                                                              8
seems that several children had gone missing over 2 years
from Sector 31, Nithari Village, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida
from 2005 onwards. Several of such children were alleged to
have been killed by the appellant who is also alleged to have
chopped and eaten the body parts after cooking them.
Appellant Surendra Koli was the servant of accused no. 1 C
Moninder Singh, and they lived together at D-5, Sector 31,
Noida.
     5. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated
11.09.2009 has discussed the evidence in great detail and we 0
have carefully perused the same. It is not necessary therefore
                          '
to again repeat all the facts which have been set out in the
judgment of the High Court except where necessary. We entirely
agree with the findings, conclusion and sentence of the High
Court so far as accused Surendra Koli is concerned.
                                                               E
     6. Admittedly, there was a confession made by Surendra
Koli before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC on
01.03.2007 and we are satisfied that it was a voluntary ·
confession. The Magistrate repeatedly told the accused
Surendra Koli that he was not bound to make the statement and F
it can be read against him. In our opinion the provisions of
Section 164 CrPC have been fully complied with while
recording the said statement.
     7. In the aforesaid statement before the Magistrate
appellant Surendra Koli has admitted in great detail how he G'
used to kill the girls after luring them inside the House no. D-5,
Sector 31, Noida by strangulating them, and he would then chop
up and eat up their body parts after cooking them. Some body
parts, clothes and slippers were thrown in the enclosed gallery
                                                                 H
    942     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 2 S.C.R.


A   behind the house at D-5, Sector 31, Naida. He volunteered to
    lead the police team to the specific spot where he had kept
    the articles/body parts hidden. The police party reached that
    spot along with the appellant. On his pointing out, 15 skulls and
    bones were recovered, and also a knife was recovered from a
s   water tank of a bath room in D-5, Sector 31. On 31.12.2006
    during the scooping of the drain in front of D-5, bones and
    chappals were recovered.
         8. He has given graphic description about the several
    murders he has committed. Surendra Kali was the servant of
C   co-accused Maninder Singh Pandher as has been admitted by
    him. The confession under Section 164 has been corroborated
    in material particulars. The body parts of the killed girls have
    been found in the gallery bef:ind the house and in the Nala
    beside the house.
D
         9. Weapons like knife have also been recovered. The girls
    clothes have also been identified.
         10. Two girls PW-27 namely Pratibha and PW-28 namely
    Purnima have stated before the trial Court that they were also
E   attempted to be lured inside the House D-5 by Surendra Kali
    but they refused to enter the house. This was their sheer good
    luck, for if they would have entered the house then they might
    have met the same fate. Their evidence indicates the modus
    operandi of the appellant.
F      11. The parents of one Rimpa Haldar had filed a missing
  report at the police station on 20.07.2005 stating that their .
  daughter Rimpa aged about 15 years had gone to do menial
  work in Sector 20 on 08.02.2005 but had not returned. Smt Dali
  Haldar came to know that in D-5, Sector 31 human skeleton
G and clothes had been found. Hence she went there and
  identified the chunni and bra of her daughter.
        12. The appellant was charged for the murder of Rimpa
    (amongst others), and was found guilty by both the trial Court
H   and High Court. Although it is a case of circumstantial evidence
   SURENDRA KOU v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                     943


we are of the opinion that the entire chain of circumstances              A
connecting the accused Surendra Koli with the crime has been
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
    13. The DNA test of Rimpa by CDFD, a pioneer institute
in Hyderabad matched with that of blood of her parents and
brother. The Doctors at AllMS have put the parts of the 8
deceased girls which have been recovered by the Doctors of
AllMS together. These bodies have been recovered in the
presence of the Doctors of AllMS at the pointing out by the
accused Surendra Koli. Thus, recovery is admissible under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act:                             C
     14. On the facts of the case we see no reason to interfere .
with the findings of the trial court and the High Court that the
appellant Surendra Koli is guilty of murdering Rimpa Haldar.
Both Courts have gone into the evicit::nce in great detail and D      1


we have perused the same. The appellant appears to be a
serial killer, and these cases in our opinion fall within the
category of rarest of the .rare cases as laid down in Bachan
singh Vs State of Punjab, 1982 SCC 689 which has been
subsequently followed in Atbir Vs Government of NCT of Delhi, E
2010  sec    (9) 1.           ·                                  I
      15. The killings by the appellant Surendra Koli are I
horrifying and barbaric. He used a definite methodology in '
committing these murders. He would see small girls passing
by the house, and taking advantage of their weakness lure F
them inside the house no. D-5, Sector 31, Nithari Village, Noida
and there he would strangulate them and after killing them he
tried to have sex with the body and would then cut off their body
parts and eat them. Some parts of the body were disposed off
by throwing them in the passage gallery and drain (nala) beside G
the house. House no. D-5, Sector 31 had become a virtual
slaughter house, where innocent children were regularly
butchered.
    16. In our opinion, this case clearly falls within the category
                                                                          H
    944       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A   of rarest of rare case and no mercy can be shown to the
    appellant Surendra Koli.
          17. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
    SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.l 608 of 2010
B          18. Leave granted.

    D.G.                                       Appeal dismissed.