SUPREME COURT: UPHOLDING SURENDRA KOLI’S CONVICTION BASED ON REJECTED EVIDENCE WOULD VIOLATE ARTICLES 14 AND 21:

The Supreme Court has set aside the last remaining conviction of Surendra Koli in the Nithari killings case, holding that allowing the conviction to stand despite identical evidence being rejected in related cases would amount to a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, observed that the evidentiary foundation underpinning Koli’s conviction had already been declared inadmissible in other connected cases. Therefore, sustaining a conviction on the same record would result in arbitrary disparity and offend the constitutional principles of equality and fairness.

The Court emphasised that Article 21 of the Constitution mandates a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, especially in cases where the punishment involves the deprivation of life or liberty. The bench noted that the requirement of procedural fairness is most stringent in cases involving capital punishment. It further explained that allowing a conviction to persist based on evidence that has subsequently been deemed involuntary or inadmissible in the same factual context would not only violate Article 21 but also Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. Maintaining inconsistent outcomes in similar cases, the Court said, would be incompatible with the rule of law. The Court clarified that the curative jurisdiction exists precisely to prevent such inconsistencies and to ensure that judicial anomalies do not become permanent precedents.

While recalling that Koli’s death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment by the Allahabad High Court on January 28, 2015, the Supreme Court noted that the conviction itself continued to carry the gravest social and legal consequences. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found that the confession forming the basis of Koli’s conviction was legally flawed and tainted by procedural irregularities. Furthermore, the alleged recoveries linked to his confession failed to meet the statutory requirements necessary for admissibility under the law. Once these defective elements were removed, the circumstantial chain of evidence, according to the Court, collapsed entirely, leaving no legally sustainable basis for conviction.

The bench observed that Koli’s case satisfied the “exacting threshold” required for the exercise of curative jurisdiction. The defects in the conviction, it held, struck at the very integrity of the adjudicatory process and undermined the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the Court found that relief was warranted ex debito justitiae, as a matter of justice itself. While acknowledging the heinous nature of the Nithari crimes and expressing deep sympathy for the suffering of the victims’ families, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal convictions must rest on legally admissible and credible evidence.

The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot operate on conjecture, suspicion, or a sense of moral outrage. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts, it said, must adhere strictly to legality rather than expediency, ensuring that justice is not secured through unconstitutional or unreliable means. The presumption of innocence, the Court underscored, endures until guilt is proven through lawful and admissible evidence. Where such proof fails, the only lawful outcome is to set aside the conviction, even in cases involving crimes of extreme brutality. The judgment thus reinforces that the administration of justice must remain bound by constitutional principles, not by the gravity of the offence or public sentiment.