Facts Of The Case:
The case involves petitioner Surendra Koli, who was employed as a domestic help in Noida’s Nithari area. Between 2005 and 2006, multiple women and children were reported missing. On December 29, 2006, human remains were discovered in the open area behind the house where Koli worked, leading to his arrest. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2009 for the murder of minor Rimpa Haldar, based primarily on a confession recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and recoveries allegedly made at his instance. This conviction was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court in 2011. However, in twelve other connected cases arising from the same set of facts and evidence, the High Court acquitted Koli in 2023, finding the confession involuntary and the recoveries inadmissible. The Supreme Court affirmed these acquittals in July 2025. Koli then filed this curative petition, arguing that sustaining his conviction in the Rimpa Haldar case while acquitting him in twelve other cases based on the identical evidence constituted a manifest miscarriage of justice and violated principles of equality and due process.
Procedural History:
The procedural history begins with the petitioner’s conviction and death sentence in 2009 by the Sessions Court for the murder of Rimpa Haldar, which was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 2009 and upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2011 judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010. A subsequent review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2014. While the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court in 2015, the conviction remained. Parallelly, the petitioner was acquitted in twelve other related cases by the High Court in 2023, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in July 2025. This final acquittal in the companion cases created an irreconcilable legal inconsistency, leading the petitioner to file the present curative petition before the Supreme Court in 2025.
READ ALSO:Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled
Court Observation:
The Court observed that sustaining the petitioner’s conviction in the Rimpa Haldar case, while he was acquitted in twelve other cases based on the identical evidentiary foundation of a Section 164 CrPC confession and Section 27 recoveries, constituted a gross miscarriage of justice. It held that the confession was legally tainted, being recorded after sixty days of uninterrupted police custody without meaningful legal aid, and that the recoveries were inadmissible as the police were already aware of the recovery sites. These structural infirmities violated the guarantees of equality under Article 14 and the right to a fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting the exercise of curative jurisdiction to set aside the conviction.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the curative petition, recalling and setting aside its 2011 judgment and the 2014 review order. Consequently, the petitioner’s conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 364, 376, and 201 of the IPC were quashed, and he was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed his immediate release unless required in any other case, thereby resolving the legal inconsistency and curing the miscarriage of justice.