Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | CURATIVE PET(R) No.-000060 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 49297/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench |
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the judgment of 15.02.2011 affirming conviction and death sentence and the order of 28.10.2014 dismissing review |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Curative Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether two final Supreme Court orders—one affirming conviction on a Section 164 confession and Section 27 recoveries, the other affirming acquittals on the same foundation—can lawfully coexist, or whether such inconsistency violates Articles 14 and 21 and necessitates curative relief? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that its curative jurisdiction, rooted in Articles 129, 137, 142 and Order XLVIII of its Rules, is triggered when irreconcilable outcomes rest on identical facts and evidence, producing a grave miscarriage of justice that offends Articles 14 and 21. The judgment reaffirmed that curative petitions are not a second review but a constitutional duty to preserve adjudicatory integrity, applicable where confessional statements and Section 27 recoveries are discredited in companion cases. Once foundational defects—lack of voluntariness under Section 164 CrPC, inadmissibility under Sections 24 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and investigative lapses—are authoritatively recognized, preceding affirmations of conviction must be set aside to ensure equality before law and fair procedure. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and the Supreme Court in curative and review matters |
| Overrules | Judgment dated 15.02.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010; Order dated 28.10.2014 in Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014 |
| Follows | Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that curative jurisdiction is not an extra review but a duty to correct manifest injustice when final orders irreconcilably conflict on the same evidence.
- Establishes that a Section 164 CrPC confession recorded after prolonged, unrecorded police custody, without proper voluntariness certification and legal aid, is inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act.
- Confirms that recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act fail if no contemporaneous disclosure is proved, if prior public or police knowledge exists, or if remand and seizure records conflict.
- Emphasizes that Article 21’s requirement of fair procedure and Article 14’s equality mandate preclude upholding convictions once those evidentiary foundations have been judicially discredited in identical prosecutions.
- Provides binding authority to challenge convictions upheld on confessions and recoveries later overturned in companion cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Threshold for Curative Jurisdiction
Invoked only to cure a gross miscarriage of justice or fundamental process defect, not for reappraisal of evidence. -
Irreconcilable Outcomes
Two Supreme Court judgments (2011 affirming conviction; 2025 affirming acquittals) on identical evidence cannot coexist without damaging judicial integrity. -
Confession under Section 164 CrPC
Recorded after ~60 days of police custody, without independent legal aid or proper magistrate certification; rendered inadmissible by Section 24 Evidence Act. -
Recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act
No contemporaneous disclosure memo; excavation and public knowledge predated accused’s arrival; contradictory remand and seizure records; thus inadmissible. -
Forensic and Investigative Deficiencies
Expert searches at D-5 yielded no incriminating traces; DNA only identified remains, not authorship; weapons lacked blood/tissue links; investigative lapses further undermined reliability. -
Constitutional Mandates
Article 21 demands fair procedure, especially in capital contexts; Article 14 requires like cases be treated alike; inconsistency offends both and warrants curative relief.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Two final Supreme Court orders on identical evidence produce an irreconcilable anomaly.
- Foundational defects in voluntariness of confession and admissibility of recoveries undermine conviction.
- The inconsistency violates Articles 14 and 21, calling for curative intervention.
Factual Background
Surendra Koli, employed as a domestic help at House D-5 in Noida, was arrested after local residents discovered human remains in a narrow strip and a drain adjoining D-5. Multiple FIRs followed, and the CBI took over, securing a confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC and recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thirteen trials ensued on that common foundation. In the Rimpa Haldar matter, lower courts convicted and imposed the death sentence, later affirmed by a two-Judge Bench in 2011; a bench in 2025 affirmed acquittals in twelve companion cases on the same evidence. The conflict between those final orders triggered this curative petition.
Statutory Analysis
-
Articles 129, 142, 137, 145, Constitution
Source of inherent and curative powers; limits review; authorises rules. -
Order XLVIII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Filing, certification, circulation requirements for curative petitions. -
Section 164, CrPC
Voluntariness conditions for confessions; requires private, uncoerced setting and magistrate’s clear satisfaction. -
Section 24, Evidence Act
Bars confession influenced by inducement, threat or promise. -
Section 27, Evidence Act
Admissibility of discoveries made by accused; requires contemporaneous memo and exclusive knowledge of discovered fact.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns Supreme Court’s own prior affirmation of conviction (2011).
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra on narrow scope of curative jurisdiction.