Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court, while setting aside the last remaining conviction of Surendra Koli in the Nithari killings case, held that allowing it to stand when all companion cases based on the same evidence have been found unsustainable would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai observed that the evidentiary foundation of Koli's conviction had already been declared inadmissible in the related cases, and that maintaining a different outcome on an identical record would amount to arbitrary disparity.

“Article 21 of the Constitution insists on a fair, just and reasonable procedure. That insistence is at its acutest where capital punishment is imposed…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” the Court said.

Although Koli's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Allahabad High Court on January 28, 2015, the Supreme Court noted that his conviction continues to carry the gravest consequences.

The Court observed that the confession forming the basis of the conviction was legally tainted and the supposed recoveries failed to satisfy the statutory preconditions for admissibility. Once those elements were removed, the Court said, the circumstantial chain of evidence no longer holds.

The Court found that Koli's case met the “exacting threshold” required for curative intervention, stating that the defects in the conviction “impeach the integrity of the adjudicatory process.” The Court said the relief was warranted ex debito justitiae – as a matter of justice.

“The offences in Nithari were heinous, and the suffering of the families is beyond measure,” the Court said, but emphasised that criminal law does not permit conviction on conjecture or a hunch.

“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”, it stated.

Observing that the presumption of innocence endures until guilt is proved through admissible and reliable evidence, the Court concluded that when such proof fails, “the only lawful outcome is to set aside the conviction even in a case involving horrific crimes.”

Also read - Nithari Killings : Supreme Court Slams Botched Probe, Expresses Regret That Real Perpetrator Not Caught

Case no. – Diary No. 49297-2025

Case Title – Surendra Koli v. State of UP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1091

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment