Lessons from Nithari acquittals

THE CBI registered 19 cases against Surinder Koli for the Nithari killings. The trial court convicted him in 14 cases. Evidence was examined at three levels: trial court, high court and Supreme Court. The 2006 Nithari serial murder case accused Mohinder Singh Pandher and his housekeeper Koli were acquitted by the Allahabad High Court in 2023, citing lack of evidence.

The lower court maintained uniformity, the Allahabad High Court acquitted them in 12 cases and it was maintained by the Supreme Court. Secondly, the high court convicted him in other cases (2009) and the conviction was maintained by the SC (2011) and it did not disturb the facts in the review petition. But the application for curative petition was allowed in September 2025 and judgment delivered on November 11.

In Indian legal history, there has not been any officially documented case where a person was first executed to death and later proven innocent through a post-execution reversal. The credit goes to advocate Indira Jai Singh. With just two hours remaining in the execution of death penalty in Meerut jail, she made the Supreme Court sit in the middle of the night for the protection of the rights of the accused.

In 2015, the Allahabad High Court commuted Koli's sentence to life imprisonment. The repeated convictions, acquittals and legal reversals have made a mockery of the justice system. The Nithari cases reveal a flawed investigation, riddled with inconsistencies and unanswered questions.

The case has raised more questions than it answered. Who killed more than 12 children? The high court has observed that it was "disheartening" that the prosecution had handled the arrests, confession and evidence recovery in a "casual and perfunctory" manner.

Consider the high court’s reasoning which led to Koli's acquittal in the case in the curative petition. It is interesting to explore the cases. These issues are mostly procedural, not factual.

The high court opined that the existence of a kitchen knife or axe was common in a house, the recovery of an article from a space which was in control of the police did not amount to discovery, the chunni (scarf) allegedly used to strangulate children was not produced in evidence during trial, the fact that accused Koli used to offer employment to women and girls passing the house was a normal activity. So, none of these acts could be considered incriminating.

The possible involvement of the owner of the adjacent bungalow, a doctor previously convicted in a kidney racket, was ignored. This, even after the Ministry of Women and Child Development pointed out the glaring gap, suggesting that the way in which body parts were cut showed "surgical precision" which only a professional could possess.

The investigation did not take due care in probing more serious aspects of a possible organised organ trading. The HC did not express any opinion on this aspect and left such issues to be examined at the appropriate level. Should it not have taken this into consideration, given the gruesome crime?

The other most crucial aspect of this case was the statement under Section 164. The high court observed that Koli had been in custody for more than 60 days before the confession. It noted that the "prolonged" police custody caused "reasonable doubt" about the "voluntariness of (Koli's) confession."

The CFSL report showed that a drop of blood was found on the pipe collected from Koli's bathroom. However, it could not be determined whether the blood was human. Blood was also found on the tile and wash-basin pipe of the bathroom on the first floor of the house. Whose blood drops were these?

Polygraph test report, narcoanalysis, brain electrical oscillation signature profile report and comprehensive forensic reports were proved in the high court by Dr SL Vaya. The findings implicated the accused and thus constituted evidence to be relied upon against him.

Interestingly, the high court held that the inculpatory statement made by the accused during narcoanalysis test can be equated to a confession made by the accused during custody and would attract the wrath of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (confession in police custody). What other technique can be used to conduct such tests during investigation? The accused stays in custody or should he be set free?

While hearing the curative petition, the SC observed "that given the fact that Koli was acquitted in the 12 other cases arising from the same set of facts and backed by similar evidence, he deserved to be set free in the one under challenge too". This case required consideration from multiple angles.