Supreme Court Acquits Surendra Koli in Nithari Case; Curative Bench Finds Confession and Recoveries Legally Unreliable

Case Name: Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Curative Petition in R.P. (Crl.) No. 395/2014 in Crl.A. No. 2227/2010)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1308
Date of Judgment/Order: 11 November 2025
Bench: Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, CJI; Surya Kant, J.; Vikram Nath, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that Surendra Koli’s conviction in the Rimpa Haldar Nithari case could not stand because the evidentiary basis—his alleged confession under Section 164 CrPC and the purported discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act—had already been judicially discredited in twelve companion Nithari cases. The Court found that the confession was inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act due to prolonged police custody, lack of meaningful legal aid, absence of judicial satisfaction on voluntariness, and textual indications of coercion. The alleged recoveries were also found legally untenable due to lack of contemporaneous disclosure, contradictions in recovery documents, prior public knowledge of remains, and the open accessibility of the sites. The Court held that inconsistent outcomes on the same evidentiary substratum violate Articles 14 and 21 and require correction under the curative jurisdiction.

Summary: The curative petition challenged Koli’s 2011 conviction and death sentence in one of the Nithari cases, even though twelve later prosecutions based on the same confession and similar recoveries resulted in acquittal—acquittals upheld by the Supreme Court on 30 July 2025. Reviewing the record, the Court detailed the Nithari investigation from 2006 onward, the confession recorded after sixty days of uninterrupted custody, and the multiple recoveries of skeletal remains. The Court recounted that the Trial Court, High Court, and earlier Supreme Court Bench had relied heavily on the Section 164 CrPC confession, corroborated by recoveries, clothing identification, and DNA matches. However, in the twelve connected cases, the High Court (2023) and the Supreme Court (2025) found the same confession involuntary and the same recovery theory flawed. The forensic evidence did not establish homicidal acts within the D-5 house, no human blood or incriminating traces were found during expert searches, and the supposed weapons bore no human material. These structural evidentiary defects were identical in the present case, making the conviction irreconcilable with the final judicial findings in the companion matters. The Court held that such discordant outcomes threatened the integrity of adjudication and demanded intervention ex debito justitiae.

Decision: Allowing the curative petition, the Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment dated 15 February 2011 and the dismissal of review dated 28 October 2014. The Court set aside the Trial Court’s conviction dated 13 February 2009 and the High Court’s confirmation dated 11 September 2009. Surendra Koli was acquitted of offences under Sections 302, 364, 376, and 201 IPC, with all sentences and fines quashed. The Court directed his immediate release unless required in any other matter. Consequentially, two pending SLPs arising from the mercy petition proceedings were disposed of as infructuous, and all remaining applications were closed.