The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment acquitting Surendra Koli in the Nithari serial killings, ruled that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act ceases to operate when the disclosure statement is not contemporaneously proved or prior knowledge exists.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has held that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) ceases to operate when a disclosure statement is not contemporaneously proved and prior knowledge of the recovery site is already established.
The ruling came while allowing the Curative Petition filed by Surendra Koli, who had been convicted and sentenced to death in one of the infamous Nithari murder cases. The judgment marks a major shift in how courts interpret the evidentiary value of discoveries made pursuant to accused disclosures.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Vikram Nath, speaking for the Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Vikram Nath, stated that when earlier decisions of the Court produce “discordant voices on an identical record,” it shakes public confidence and requires intervention ex debito justitiae, as a matter of constitutional duty.
ALSO READ: BREAKING| Nithari Serial Killings: Supreme Court Acquits Surendra Koli After 18 Years
Background
The Nithari killings in Noida’s Sector 31 between 2005 and 2006 shocked the nation when skeletal remains of several women and children were discovered near House D5, the residence of businessman Moninder Singh Pandher, where Surendra Koli worked as a domestic help.
In 2009, Koli was convicted and sentenced to death in the Rimpa Haldar case under Sections 302 (Murder), 364 (Kidnapping), 376 (Rape), and 201 (Destruction of Evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His conviction was upheld by the Allahabad High Court and later affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2011. However, in twelve other related Nithari cases, Koli was acquitted by the High Court in 2023, and those acquittals were confirmed by the Supreme Court in July 2025.
This curative petition was filed to address the inconsistency of Koli being convicted in one case while being acquitted in others, all based on the same confession and recovery evidence.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court noted that both the confession under Section 164 CrPC and the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the Rimpa Haldar case were based on the same evidentiary framework as in the other twelve cases.
The Court observed:
“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.”
The Bench found that:
- No contemporaneous disclosure memo was produced.
- Contradictions existed between the panchnama and remand papers.
- The recovery site was already known to police and locals before Koli’s alleged disclosure.
- Excavation had already begun before his arrival.
Hence, the recoveries were not legally attributable to Koli.
The Court meticulously identified serious flaws in the investigation and prosecution:
- The confession was recorded after 60 days of continuous police custody, without private access to legal aid.
- The Investigating Officer was present during the confession, undermining voluntariness.
- There was no medical or forensic evidence linking Koli directly to the murders.
- Forensic experts found no bloodstains or human remains inside D5, contradicting the prosecution’s version.
- Alleged weapons (knife and axe) bore no human blood or tissue.
- The organ-trade angle, flagged by a government committee, was never investigated.
The Bench agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that these structural defects undermined the fairness and reliability of the prosecution’s case.
Reiterating the primacy of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court held:
“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, since like cases must be treated alike.”
The Court emphasized that fair, just, and reasonable procedure is indispensable, especially in cases involving the death penalty. It reaffirmed that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Citing Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388, the Court reaffirmed that curative jurisdiction is not a second review but a limited remedy to correct manifest injustice and preserve judicial integrity.
The Bench observed that when the Court’s previous orders “speak with discordant voices on an identical record,” the inconsistency threatens the rule of law and necessitates judicial correction.
In a scathing remark on investigative failures, the Court noted:
“When investigations are timely, professional, and constitutionally compliant, even the most difficult mysteries can be solved… Negligence and delay corroded the fact-finding process and foreclosed avenues that might have identified the true offender.”
The Court expressed deep regret that, despite years of investigation, the real perpetrator behind the Nithari killings remains unidentified.
The Supreme Court:
- Allowed the Curative Petition.
- Set aside its 2011 and 2014 orders affirming conviction.
- Quashed all charges and sentences under Sections 302, 364, 376, and 201 IPC.
- Ordered the immediate release of Surendra Koli, unless required in another case.
The Court concluded powerfully:
“Courts cannot prefer expediency over legality. The presumption of innocence endures until guilt is proved through admissible and reliable evidence.”
Case Title:
SURENDRA KOLI vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Diary No. – 49297/2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Nithari Serial Killings
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
