Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Posted by

Lexful

On December 2, 2025

This case analysis is written by Disha Hirwani, she is a 2nd-semester LL.B. student at Aishwarya College of Education and Law. She also serves as an author at Lexful Legal.

Case name– Surendra Koli v. The State

of Uttar Pradesh

Judgement dated 11 November 2025

Bench – Vikram Nath, Surya Kant, Bhushan

Ramkrishna Gavai

Court – Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction – Inherent Jurisdiction

Curative Petition

Diary no 49297 of 2015

Petitioner – Surendra Koli

Respondent – State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

Relevant provisions and statute

In the Nithari case, there are charges of murder, kidnapping, rape, unnatural sexual offences, disposal of evidence and procedural violations.
Many sections of IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act and POCSO were used in this case.

Indian Penal Code

1. Section 302 – Murder

2. Section 364 – Kidnapping

3. Section 376 – Rape

4. Section 377 – Unnatural offences

5. Section 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence

6. Section 120B – Criminal Conspiracy

Code of Criminal Procedure

1. Section 164 – Recording of Confession

2. Section 161 – Statements to Police

3. Section 173 – Police Report / Charge-sheet

4. Section 167 – Police custody and Judicial custody

5. Section 313 – Examination of Accused

Indian Evidence Act

1. Section 24 – Confession caused by threat

2. Sections 25 and 26 – Confession to a police officer not admissible

3. Section 27 – Recovery on disclosure

4. Section 45 – Expert opinion / Forensics

5. Section 3 – Circumstantial Evidence

POCSO Act

1. Section 5 – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault

2. Section 6 – Punishment for aggravated assault

3. Sections 9 and 10 – Sexual assault

Judicial Precedents

1. Confessions

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram

Pakela Narayana Swami’s case

2. Circumstantial Evidence

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

3. Benefit of Doubt

Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Facts of the Case

Surendra Koli was employed as a domestic help at House D5, Sector 31, Noida.
The house was owned and occupied by one Moninder Singh Pandher. 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 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.
On 29.12.2006, the local police took Surendra Koli into custody in connection with the missing persons from Nithari Village.
On the same day, Pandher was detained outside D5.
When the police 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 were taken out from the covered
stormwater drain in front of Houses D1 to D6.
Multiple FIRs were registered on 30.12.2006 for different missing persons.
The State transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. A team from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Agra examined D5. Teams from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory assisted the CBI in searches.
Thirteen trials followed.
Each proceeded on a common evidentiary foundation that comprised the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries and the confessional statement.
By judgment dated 13.02.2009 in the Sessions, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and imposed the death sentence.
The Trial Court relied on a confession recorded, 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 Trial Court treated the confession as voluntary and truthful and found corroboration in the recovery of skulls and bones
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 as voluntary and reliable.
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 and the testimony of two young girls.
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.
The petitioner’s confession was not admissible against a co-accused,
The High Court commuted the sentence of death in this case to imprisonment for life.
The High Court allowed the petitioner’s appeals in all twelve matters and acquitted the Petitioner.
The High Court therefore held that the circumstantial chain was incomplete.
The State preferred appeals against the acquittals.
The petitioner is acquitted of the charges, sentences and fines imposed thereunder stand quashed.

Arguments from Appellant (Surendra Koli)

The appellant pointed out that the same evidence was accepted to convict him in one case but rejected in the other 12 similar cases, violating his right to equal treatment under the constitution law (Article 14).

He argued that his confession was not voluntary but was made after 60 days of police custody without proper legal assistance and making the confession unreliable and inadmissible.

The appellant highlighted procedural errors in the investigation, such as inadequate securing of the crime scenes, contradictory police reports and a lack of medical examination during custody, which weakened this case from the prosecution’s side.

The discovery of bodies and evidence like shoes and bags, clothes of children and women attributed to him, was challenged because these were already known to police, so they could not be considered valid “discoveries” by him.

There was no direct forensic evidence, like DNA samples and blood reports, conclusively linking the appellant to the murders, raising doubts about his guilt.

Given the gravity of the death penalty, the appellant argued that the evidence did not meet the strict standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.

Arguments from the Respondent Side

➡ The State maintained that Surendra Koli’s confession was a key piece of evidence made before a magistrate and, therefore, admissible and reliable, with corroborating material recoveries.

➡ The prosecution argued that Koli led the police, according to his confession to the remains and other key evidence, which was independently verified, thereby showing his involvement.

➡ Statements of two young girls, medical and forensic reports were cited to support the chain of events implicating Koli as the accused.

➡ The State contended that the circumstantial evidence with Koli’s confession was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution asserted that legal formalities and procedures were complied with during the investigation and trial, and any minor irregularities did not vitiate the trial.

➡ Emphasizing the gravity and barbarity of the crimes as this crime has crossed all the limits of heinousness, the State argued that for upholding the conviction to serve justice.

➡ The State pointed to the validity of the evidence in the convicted case as independent and reliable

Judgement

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 petitioner’s Section 164 CrPC statement was recorded after about sixty days of uninterrupted police custody without meaningful legal aid.
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.
The supposed discoveries do not satisfy the statutory preconditions for admissibility. The forensic and investigative record does not supply the missing links.
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.

For these reasons, we hold that the petitioner has established a fundamental defect that impeaches the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
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.
For the reasons recorded above, the curative petition is allowed, and Surendra Koli has been acquitted.