SURENDRA KOLIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

                [2025] 12 S.C.R. 152 : 2025 INSC 1308

                           Surendra Koli
                                  v.
                  The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
                  (Curative Petition (Crl.) No. 60 of 2025)
                                      In
                        (R.P. (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014)
                                      In
                         (Crl. A. No. 2227 of 2010)
                             11 November 2025
           [Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant and
                        Vikram Nath,* JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       Whether the present case meets the exacting threshold for the
       exercise of the curative jurisdiction of this Court and; whether
       two sets of outcomes of this Court can stand together when they
       rest on an identical evidentiary foundation; whether in the facts
       and circumstances of the case, the curative petition ought to be
       allowed and the petitioner be acquitted of the charges u/ss.302,
       364, 376 and 201, IPC.

                                 Headnotes†
       Curative Petition – Nithari Case – Two sets of outcomes resting
       on an identical evidentiary foundation – Impermissibility –
       Exercise of curative jurisdiction – In Criminal Appeal No. 2227
       of 2010 decided on 15.02.2011, Supreme Court affirmed the
       petitioner’s conviction and sentence of death in the Rimpa
       Haldar case on the strength of a s.164, CrPC confession
       and supposed discoveries u/s.27, Evidence Act – Review
       petition against this order was dismissed – However, in twelve
       companion prosecutions founded on the same confession
       and recoveries, the High Court acquitted the petitioner on
       16.10.2023, and vide order dtd. 30.07.2025, Supreme Court
       dismissed the State appeals and affirmed those acquittals
       rejecting the very same confession and the very same class
       of s.27 material as legally unreliable – Present petition filed
* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                              153

           Surendra Koli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     by the petitioner on the ground that irreconcilable outcomes
     have arisen on an identical evidentiary framework and that a
     manifest miscarriage of justice remains despite the dismissal
     of review:
     Held: The present case meets the exacting threshold for the exercise
     of the curative jurisdiction – Petitioner has established a fundamental
     defect that impeaches the integrity of the adjudicatory process and
     that relief is warranted ex debito justitiae within the parameters
     of Rupa Ashok Hurra case – The confession that anchored the
     conviction is legally tainted on grounds already accepted by this
     Court in the companion matters – The supposed discoveries do not
     satisfy the statutory preconditions for admissibility – The forensic
     and investigative record does not supply the missing links –
     Once those keystones are removed, the circumstantial chain no
     longer holds – Art.21 of the Constitution insists on a fair, just and
     reasonable procedure – That insistence is at its acutest where capital
     punishment is imposed – Although the petitioner’s death sentence
     in this case was commuted to imprisonment for life on 28.01.2015
     by the High Court in writ proceedings challenging the rejection of
     his mercy petition, the conviction continues to carry the gravest
     consequences – To allow a conviction to stand on evidentiary basis
     that this Court has since rejected as involuntary or inadmissible
     in the very same fact-matrix offends Art.21 – It also violates
     Art.14 since like cases must be treated alike – Arbitrary disparity
     in outcomes on an identical record is inimical to equality before
     the law – Curative petition allowed – Judgment dtd. 15.02.2011 in
     Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 and the order in Review Petition
     are recalled and set aside – Petitioner acquitted – Constitution of
     India – Arts.21, 14. [Paras 9, 15, 16, 19-22]
     Curative Petition – Curative jurisdiction – Threshold for
     exercise of, stated. [Paras 2-4]

                               Case Law Cited
     Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra [2002] 2 SCR 1006 : (2002) 4
     SCC 388 – followed.

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India; Evidence Act, 1872; Code
     of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
154                                                             [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


                                List of Keywords
       Curative petition; Curative jurisdiction; Threshold for invoking
       curative jurisdiction; Threshold for exercise of curative jurisdiction;
       Manifest miscarriage of justice; Grave miscarriage of justice;
       Exacting threshold; Nithari Case; Two sets of outcomes; Identical
       Evidentiary foundation; ex debito justitiae; Rupa Ashok Hurra case;
       Like cases must be treated alike.

                               Case Arising From
       INHERENT JURISDICTION: Curative Petition (Crl.) No. 60 of 2025
       In
       R.P. (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014
       In
       Crl. A. No. 2227 of 2010
       From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2014 of the Supreme
       Court at Delhi in RR No. 395 of 2014

                            Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Petitioner:
       Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Payoshi Roy, Siddhartha Sharma,
       Prabhu Ramasubramaniam, N. Sai Vinod, Bharatimohan M, Ms.
       Kanu Garg.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Raja Thakare, A.S.G., Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar
       Maroria, K. Parameshwar, Praneet Pranav, Rajendra Singh Rana,
       Ms. Vaishali Verma, Rohit Khare, Ms. Astha Singh, Rishikesh
       Haridas, Kritagya Kumar Kait.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Delay condoned.
       This curative petition presents an exceptional case for the exercise
       of our curative jurisdiction. The petitioner shows that a manifest
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                           155

              Surendra Koli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


      miscarriage of justice endures and that two sets of outcomes resting
      on the same evidentiary foundation cannot lawfully coexist. When
      final orders of this Court speak with discordant voices on an identical
      record, the integrity of adjudication is imperilled, and public confidence
      is shaken. In such a situation, intervention ex debito justitiae is not
      an act of discretion but a constitutional duty. We therefore entertain
      this petition to preserve the purity of this Court’s process and to
      vindicate the rule of law.
2.    The curative jurisdiction of this Court exists to prevent abuse of process
      and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v.
      Ashok Hurra1, the Constitution Bench of this Court recognised that
      this power flows from the inherent authority of this Court to do complete
      justice and to protect the integrity of its judgments. However, the
      constitutional source of this power is coherent and limited. Article 129
      of the Constitution of India (hereinafter “The Constitution”) declares
      this Court to be a court of record with inherent powers to preserve
      the purity of its process. Article 142 of the Constitution empowers
      this Court to make such orders as are necessary for doing complete
      justice. Article 137 of the Constitution recognises the power of review
      and marks its limits. Article 145 of the Constitution of India authorises
      the framing of rules. Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules,
      2013, titled “Curative Petition” prescribes the filing requirements, the
      certification by a Senior Advocate, and the preliminary circulation to
      a bench as indicated in Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra). These provisions
      together sustain a narrow jurisdiction that may be invoked only after
      review has failed to correct a grave defect.
3.    Moreover, we must emphasize that Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra) makes
      it clear that a curative petition is not a second review. Finality remains
      the rule and intervention is reserved only for very strong reasons
      that strike at the legitimacy of the adjudicatory process. The court
      has stated that only certain foundational circumstances demand
      relief as a matter of justice. One is a violation of natural justice
      where a person is adversely affected without being heard or without
      proper notice. Another is a case where a Judge failed to disclose a
      connection with the subject matter or with a party which gives rise
      to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The instances are illustrative


1    (2002) 4 SCC 388
156                                                         [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       and not exhaustive. The guiding principle for the exercise of curative
       jurisdiction is the duty of this Court to avert manifest injustice.
4.     The controlling test is whether the earlier decision produces a result
       that offends the conscience of this Court because of a fundamental
       defect in process or because of a grave miscarriage of justice. Such
       defects may appear where outcomes are irreconcilably inconsistent
       on the same substratum of facts and evidence or where material
       circumstances bearing on fairness and reliability were overlooked
       or where the guarantees of equality and due process under Articles
       14 and 21 of the Constitution stand compromised. Even when leave
       to proceed is granted, the inquiry remains narrow. This Court does
       not sit in appeal over its own final judgment and does not reappraise
       evidence as if in a second appeal. The question is whether intervention
       is necessary to vindicate the rule of law and to restore confidence in
       the administration of justice. With these principles in view we shall
       now examine whether the present case meets the exacting threshold
       for the exercise of the curative jurisdiction of this Court.
5.     This curative petition arises from Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010
       decided on 15.02.2011, by which this Court affirmed the petitioner’s
       conviction and sentence of death in the Rimpa Haldar case. The
       review petition against this order was dismissed on 28.10.2014 in
       Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014. On 28.01.2015, the High
       Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. In
       twelve companion prosecutions founded on the same confession and
       recoveries, the High Court acquitted the petitioner on 16.10.2023, and
       on 30.07.2025, this Court dismissed the State appeals and affirmed
       those acquittals. The present petition filed by the petitioner on the
       ground that irreconcilable outcomes have arisen on an identical
       evidentiary framework and that a manifest miscarriage of justice
       remains despite the dismissal of review.

6.     The Nithari Case Background:
       6.1. Surendra Koli, the petitioner herein, was employed as a domestic
            help at House D5, Sector 31, Noida. The house was owned and
            occupied by one Moninder Singh Pandher, the employer of the
            petitioner. From early 2005 residents of Nithari began reporting
            that women and children were missing. In March 2005, children
            in the neighbourhood playing cricket noticed a human hand in
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                      157

            Surendra Koli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


            the narrow open strip between Houses D5 and D6 and the Jal
            Board residential quarters. On 03.12.2006, a human hand was
            again noticed during drain cleaning on the main road in front
            of the row of bungalows D1 to D6.
      6.2. On 29.12.2006, the local police took the petitioner into custody
           in connection with FIR No. 838 of 2006 concerning the
           disappearance of Payal, one of the victims. On the same day
           Pandher was detained outside D5. When the police and panch
           witnesses reached D5, a large crowd had already gathered and
           digging was underway in the open strip between D5, D6 and the
           Jal Board compound. Multiple skulls and bones with footwear
           and clothes were recovered from that strip on 29.12.2006. A
           knife was recovered from beneath the terrace water tank of D5.
           On 31.12.2006 further human remains and articles were taken
           out from the covered storm water drain in front of Houses D1
           to D6. Multiple FIRs were registered on 30.12.2006 for different
           missing persons.
      6.3. On 09.01.2007, the State transferred investigation to the
           Central Bureau of Investigation under the Delhi Special Police
           Establishment Act, 1946. A team from the Forensic Science
           Laboratory at Agra examined D5 between 04.01.2007 and
           06.01.2007. Teams from the All India Institute of Medical
           Sciences and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory assisted
           the CBI in searches at and around D5 through mid-January 2007.
      6.4. Thirteen trials followed. Each proceeded on a common
           evidentiary foundation that comprised the alleged disclosure
           leading to recoveries and the confessional statement under
           Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732. The
           present matter concerns the case relating to Rimpa Haldar, a
           minor who went missing in 2005.

7.    First round of litigation (Rimpa Haldar case)
      7.1. By judgment dated 13.02.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 611 of
           2007, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the death of
           Rimpa Haldar under Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the


2    CrPC
158                                                         [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


              Indian Penal Code, 18603 and imposed the death sentence.
              The Trial Court relied on a confession recorded on 01.03.2007
              under Section 164 of the CrPC, on recoveries said to have
              been made at the petitioner’s instance from House No. D-5,
              Sector 31, Noida, and on a chain of circumstantial facts. The
              confession runs to several pages and states that the petitioner
              lured the victim Rimpa Haldar into D-5, strangled her with a
              chunni, engaged in sexual assault after death, dismembered
              the body, and disposed parts in the rear gallery and in the
              stormwater drain. The Magistrate recorded preliminary questions
              on voluntariness. The Trial Court treated the confession as
              voluntary and truthful and found corroboration in the recovery
              of skulls and bones from the rear gallery and drain, in the
              identification of the victim’s clothing by relatives, and in DNA
              profiling reported by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and
              Diagnostics, Hyderabad, which matched remains with the blood
              samples of the victim’s parents.
       7.2. On 11.09.2009, the High Court affirmed the conviction and
            sentence of death of the Petitioner and acquitted the co-
            accused, Moninder Singh Pandher, in this case. The High Court
            treated the confession under Section 164 CrPC as voluntary
            and reliable. It also found corroboration in material particulars.
            It relied on recoveries of skulls, bones, clothing and footwear
            from the enclosed gallery behind D-5 and from the adjacent
            drain, identification of articles by relatives of victims including
            Payal, one of the victims, and the testimony of two young girls,
            PW-27 Pratibha and PW-28 Purnima, who described attempts
            by the petitioner to lure them towards D-5, which the High Court
            viewed as revealing the Petitioner’s modus operandi. The High
            Court also noted forensic linkage through DNA analysis and
            held that the circumstantial chain was complete. In acquitting
            Moninder Singh Pandher, the High Court recorded that there
            was no substantive evidence connecting him with the crime,
            that the petitioner’s confession was not admissible against a
            co-accused, that recoveries were pursuant to the petitioner’s
            disclosure, and that no overt act or presence of Pandher was
            proved in relation to this offence.


3   In short “IPC”
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                        159

              Surendra Koli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


      7.3. On 15.02.2011, a two-Judge Bench of this Court dismissed
           Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 and affirmed the conviction
           and sentence of death. This Court recorded that the confession
           under Section 164 CrPC was voluntary and that statutory
           safeguards were observed. It noted the petitioner’s detailed
           admissions and his leading of the police to the place where
           multiple skulls and bones were recovered, as well as the
           seizure of a knife from D-5. It referred to the evidence of
           PW-27 and PW-28 as indicative of the petitioner’s modus
           operandi. It relied on DNA analysis by the Centre for DNA
           Fingerprinting and Diagnostics matching remains to the blood
           samples of Rimpa Haldar’s parents and brother, and on the
           role of doctors from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences
           in assembling recovered parts. The recoveries were treated as
           admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18724.
           Characterising the petitioner as a serial killer, this Court held
           that the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category and upheld
           the sentence of death.
      7.4. On 28.10.2014, after an open-court hearing, this Court dismissed
           Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014. The Court reiterated the
           narrow compass of review under Article 137 of the Constitution,
           found no error apparent on the face of the record, and declined
           to revisit findings on voluntariness or evidentiary appreciation.
           The submission regarding ineffective assistance at trial was
           rejected at the review stage.
      7.5. Subsequently, on 28.01.2015, in writ proceedings challenging
           the rejection of mercy petition of the Petitioner, the High Court
           commuted the sentence of death in this case to imprisonment for
           life. The conviction continued to stand. Special Leave Petitions,
           SLP (Crl.) No. 1444 of 2016 and SLP (Crl.) No. 7456 of 2016,
           filed against the judgment dated 28.01.2015 of the High Court,
           remain pending before this Court.

8.    The other twelve cases
      8.1. Between 2010 and 2021, the petitioner was tried and convicted
           in twelve additional capital cases arising from the same


4    Evidence Act
160                                                         [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            circumstances in the Nithari area at House No. D-5, Sector-31,
            Noida. These trials proceeded on the same evidentiary
            foundation, namely the confession recorded under Section
            164 of the CrPC and alleged discoveries and recoveries said
            to have been made at the petitioner’s instance under Section
            27 of the Evidence Act. In two of these cases the co-accused,
            Moninder Singh Pandher, was also convicted by the Trial Court.
       8.2. By a set of judgments dated 16.10.2023, the High Court allowed
            the petitioner’s appeals in all twelve matters and acquitted
            the Petitioner. The High Court held that the confession under
            Section 164 CrPC could not be treated as voluntary or reliable.
            It recorded that the petitioner had been kept in uninterrupted
            police custody for about sixty days before the confession was
            recorded, that there was no meaningful or private access to
            legal aid, that the recording Magistrate did not express the clear
            satisfaction on voluntariness that Section 164 CrPC requires,
            and that the Investigating Officer was brought into the room
            at the outset and kept immediately available outside, which
            undermined voluntariness. The High Court noted repeated
            assertions within the confession of tutoring and references
            to torture and concluded that the bar under Section 24 of the
            Evidence Act was attracted.
       8.3. The High Court further held that the alleged discoveries
            and recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were
            inadmissible and unreliable. The prosecution did not prove any
            contemporaneous disclosure statement. There were material
            contradictions between the panchnama narrative and the remand
            papers, including a reference to a joint disclosure by both accused
            that could not stand with the later version that the petitioner
            alone led to discovery. The evidence showed that members of
            the public and the police were already aware of body parts at
            the recovery site and that excavation had commenced before the
            petitioner arrived. The principal site lay in an open strip behind
            D-5 and D-6 and in the drain on the main road, which was not
            under the petitioner’s exclusive domain. These features negated
            the essential element of discovery by the accused.
       8.4. On the forensic record, the High Court found an absence of
            corroboration. Searches of D-5 by expert teams did not yield
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                       161

           Surendra Koli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


          human bloodstains or human remains that would be consistent
          with multiple homicides and dismemberment inside the house.
          There was no incriminating trace in the kitchen or on utensils. A
          semen stain on a quilt did not match with the petitioner or the
          identified victims. The DNA work undertaken by the Centre for
          DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics linked certain remains to
          families of missing persons but did not connect the petitioner
          to the actus reus within D-5. The High Court therefore held that
          the circumstantial chain was incomplete.
     8.5. The High Court also found that the recoveries of a knife and an
          axe did not advance the prosecution case. Neither implement
          bore human blood or tissue. The prosecution did not establish
          that the cut marks on bones, if any, were consistent with those
          implements or that these specific implements were used. There
          was no independent proof that the petitioner possessed the skill
          or capability to carry out the precise acts alleged with those
          implements. Taken with the absence of incriminating traces
          within D-5, the supposed weapon link failed. The High Court
          criticised the investigation as botched and shifting, and recorded
          that material avenues, including the organ-trade angle noted by
          a committee of the Ministry of Women and Child Development,
          were not probed. In two of the twelve matters the High Court
          also acquitted Moninder Singh Pandher.
     8.6. The State preferred appeals against the acquittals. By an order
          dated 30.07.2025, a three-Judge Bench of this Court dismissed
          those appeals. The acquittals recorded by the High Court on
          16.10.2023 have therefore attained finality.
9.   In view of the foregoing narrative, the petitioner has shown grounds
     that lie within the narrow compass of the curative jurisdiction
     recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra). What is asserted is not
     a plea for reappraisal of evidence but a fundamental defect that
     impeaches the integrity of the adjudicatory process. The petitioner
     points to outcomes of this Court that cannot be reconciled on the
     same evidentiary substratum and to defects that bear directly
     on voluntariness, admissibility and investigative fairness. Such
     inconsistency engages the guarantees of equality and due process
     under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution and warrants
     consideration ex debito justitiae. The petition carries the averments
162                                                      [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       and certification required by Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court
       Rules, 2013 and has been placed before us in accordance with the
       prescribed procedure. We are therefore satisfied that the threshold
       for invoking the curative jurisdiction is met and we proceed to
       examine the merits.
10. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and having closely
    examined the record of the present case along with the subsequent
    judgments to which reference has been made, we are satisfied that
    the determinative question is whether two sets of outcomes of this
    Court can stand together when they rest on an identical evidentiary
    foundation. The first is the decision of 15.02.2011 affirming the
    petitioner’s conviction and death sentence on the strength of a Section
    164 CrPC confession and supposed discoveries under Section 27
    of the Evidence Act. The second is the order dated 30.07.2025 by
    a three-Judge Bench dismissing the State’s appeals and thereby
    affirming twelve acquittals where the very same confession and
    the very same class of Section 27 material were rejected as legally
    unreliable. The tension is not peripheral. It goes to the integrity of
    adjudication. In such a situation, the curative jurisdiction recognised
    in Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra) is rightly invoked. The object is not
    to reopen evidence as in a second appeal. The object is to cure a
    manifest miscarriage of justice where inconsistent results persist
    on the same foundation and undermine public confidence in the
    administration of justice.
11. We accordingly test the present conviction against the legal defects
    that led the High Court, and thereafter this Court, to discard the
    common evidentiary pillars in the companion matters. Those defects
    were not factual peculiarities confined to other victims. They were
    structural infirmities inherent in the mode of proof relied upon
    across the Nithari prosecutions. The petitioner’s Section 164 CrPC
    statement was recorded after about sixty days of uninterrupted
    police custody without meaningful legal aid. The recording Magistrate
    did not record the clear, unqualified satisfaction that the statute
    demands. The Investigating Officer’s proximity to the recording
    process, including his presence at the outset and his ready access,
    thereafter, compromised the environment of voluntariness. The text
    of the statement itself repeatedly adverted to tutoring and to prior
    coercion. These features attracted the bar under Section 24 of the
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                        163

           Surendra Koli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     Evidence Act and rendered the confession inadmissible as a matter
     of law. 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.
12. The second pillar concerns the alleged discoveries and recoveries
    under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court found that
    no contemporaneous disclosure memo was proved. The narrative in
    the later-prepared seizure memorandum conflicted with the remand
    papers, which recorded a joint disclosure by both accused. The
    evidence also showed that the police and members of the public
    already knew that bones and articles lay in the open strip and that
    excavation had begun before the petitioner arrived. These features
    negate the essential element of discovery by the accused and reduce
    the exercise to a seizure from an already known place. Those
    findings were upheld when the State’s appeals were dismissed on
    30.07.2025. The present conviction rests on the same recovery
    architecture. Once the disclosure is not contemporaneously proved,
    once prior knowledge is established, and once contradictions infect
    the record, Section 27 of the Evidence Act ceases to operate. The
    legal conclusion cannot change from case to case when the premise
    is identical.
13. The forensic analysis reinforces that conclusion. Extensive
    searches of D-5 by expert teams did not yield human bloodstains,
    remains, or transfer patterns consistent with multiple homicides and
    dismemberment inside the house. The DNA work undertaken by the
    Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics in Hyderabad linked
    certain remains to families of missing persons. That science aided only
    identification. It did not prove authorship of homicide by the petitioner
    within D-5. Knives and an axe were exhibited without proof of blood,
    tissue, or hair consistent with use in the alleged crimes. There was
    no credible chain of custody or expert testimony establishing that
    a domestic help with no medical training could perform the precise
    dismemberment described. These gaps were central to the acquittals
    in the twelve cases. They are equally present here.
14. We add that the High Court’s critique of the investigation was not
    rhetorical excess. It was anchored in record-based deficiencies that
    bear directly on fairness and reliability. The failure to secure prompt
164                                                       [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       and independent medical documentation during the long spell of
       police custody, the perfunctory legal-aid arrangement at the moment
       of confession, the presence and influence of the Investigating
       Officer during the Section 164 procedure, the contradictions in
       remand and recovery papers, and the neglect of material avenues
       of inquiry, including the organ-trade angle flagged by a governmental
       committee, cumulatively undermine confidence in the prosecution’s
       case theory. We find ourselves in agreement with that assessment.
       The same infirmities, viewed through the lens of the present record,
       cannot yield a different legal conclusion.
15. We must emphasize that Article 21 of the Constitution insists on a
    fair, just and reasonable procedure. That insistence is at its acutest
    where capital punishment is imposed. Although the petitioner’s
    death sentence in this case was commuted to imprisonment for
    life on 28.01.2015, the conviction continues to carry the gravest
    consequences. To allow a conviction to stand on evidentiary basis
    that this Court has since rejected as involuntary or inadmissible in
    the very same fact-matrix offends Article 21 of the Constitution. It
    also violates Article 14 of the Constitution, since like cases must be
    treated alike. Arbitrary disparity in outcomes on an identical record
    is inimical to equality before the law. The curative jurisdiction exists
    to prevent precisely such anomalies from hardening into precedent.
16. We are mindful of finality. We are equally mindful that curative relief
    is exceptional and proceeds on narrow grounds. The present case
    crosses that exacting threshold. The confession that anchored the
    conviction is legally tainted on grounds already accepted by this
    Court in the companion matters. The supposed discoveries do not
    satisfy the statutory preconditions for admissibility. The forensic
    and investigative record does not supply the missing links. Once
    those keystones are removed, the circumstantial chain no longer
    holds. The conviction cannot be sustained without departing from
    principles that now stand authoritatively applied to indistinguishable
    prosecutions arising out of the same occurrence. For these reasons,
    we hold that the petitioner has established a fundamental defect
    that impeaches the integrity of the adjudicatory process and that
    relief is warranted ex debito justitiae within the parameters of Rupa
    Ashok Hurra (Supra).
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                       165

           Surendra Koli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


17. The offences in Nithari were heinous, and the suffering of the
    families is beyond measure. It is a matter of deep regret that despite
    prolonged investigation, the identity of the actual perpetrator has
    not been established in a manner that meets the legal standards.
    Criminal law does not permit conviction on conjecture or on a hunch.
    Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable
    doubt. Courts cannot prefer expediency over legality. The presumption
    of innocence endures until guilt is proved through admissible and
    reliable evidence, and when the proof fails the only lawful outcome
    is to set aside the conviction even in a case involving horrific crimes.
18. At this juncture, we must remark on our abiding faith in the
    capacity of police and investigative agencies of our country.
    When investigations are timely, professional and constitutionally
    compliant, even the most difficult mysteries can be solved and
    many crimes can be prevented by early intervention. It is, therefore,
    genuinely unfortunate that in the present matter negligence and
    delay corroded the fact-finding process and foreclosed avenues
    that might have identified the true offender. The scene was not
    secured before excavation began, the alleged disclosure was
    not contemporaneously recorded, the remand papers carried
    contradictory versions, and the petitioner was kept in prolonged
    police custody without a timely, court-directed medical examination.
    Crucial scientific opportunities were lost when post-mortem material
    and other forensic outputs were not promptly and properly brought
    on record and when searches of D-5 yielded no incriminating
    traces that could be forensically anchored to the alleged events.
    The investigation did not adequately examine obvious witnesses
    from the household and neighbourhood and did not pursue material
    leads, including the organ-trade angle flagged by a governmental
    committee. Each lapse weakened the provenance and reliability
    of the evidence and narrowed the path to the truth.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the curative petition is allowed.
20. The judgment dated 15.02.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of
    2010 and the order dated 28.10.2014 in Review Petition (Crl.) No.
    395 of 2014 are recalled and set aside.
21. Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 is allowed. The judgment dated
    13.02.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 611 of 2007 passed by the Additional
166                                                       [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, and the judgment dated 11.09.2009
       passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
       Confirmation/Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 are set aside.
22. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 364,
    376 and 201 of the IPC. All sentences and fines imposed thereunder
    stand quashed.
23. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other
    case or proceeding. The Registry shall communicate this judgment
    forthwith to the Superintendent of the jail concerned and to the Trial
    Court for immediate compliance.
24. In view of this acquittal, SLP (Crl.) No. 1444 of 2016 and SLP (Crl.)
    No. 7456 of 2016 arising from the judgment dated 28.01.2015 stand
    disposed of as infructuous.
25. All pending applications stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Curative petition allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey