The Supreme Court of India, in a significant curative jurisdiction order dated 5 November 2025, acquitted Surendra Koli in connection with the Nithari serial killings case. A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Vikram Nath set aside the death sentence, holding that the conviction rested on inadmissible evidence and that curative jurisdiction exists to prevent grave miscarriages of justice.
Background
The Nithari killings case, originating from the Noida district of Uttar Pradesh, was one of India's most closely watched criminal prosecutions. Surendra Koli, a domestic helper, had been convicted under Sections 302, 364, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder and sexual assault of multiple victims. The trial court had imposed the death sentence, which was subsequently confirmed by the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction.
After exhausting the regular appellate process and having a review petition dismissed, Koli filed a curative petition — the final judicial remedy available under the constitutional framework. The curative petition raised fundamental questions about the reliability of the evidence on which the conviction was founded, particularly the forensic and circumstantial material presented at trial.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court, exercising its curative jurisdiction, made the following determinations:
Inadmissible evidence: The Bench found that critical evidence relied upon by the prosecution failed to meet the threshold of admissibility under established evidentiary standards. Procedural irregularities in the collection and preservation of forensic evidence rendered key material unreliable.
Curative jurisdiction affirmed: The Court reiterated that curative jurisdiction serves as a constitutional safeguard against manifest injustice. Chief Justice Gavai observed that curative jurisdiction exists precisely to prevent anomalies where a person may be wrongly convicted based on evidence that does not withstand scrutiny.
Death sentence set aside: Given the fundamental evidentiary deficiencies, the Bench concluded that the conviction under Sections 302, 364, 376, and 201 of the IPC could not be sustained. The death sentence was accordingly set aside and an order of acquittal was passed.
Article 21 protection: The Court emphasised that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution demands that no person be deprived of life based on evidence that is procedurally compromised or inherently unreliable, particularly in capital punishment cases.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment carries significant weight for criminal defence practitioners handling capital cases and curative petitions. The decision reinforces that curative jurisdiction, though rarely exercised, remains a meaningful constitutional remedy — not merely a theoretical one. Defence counsel in cases involving death sentences should carefully evaluate whether evidentiary challenges warrant pursuing curative relief.
The emphasis on forensic evidence standards is particularly noteworthy. Practitioners should scrutinise the chain of custody, collection methodology, and preservation protocols for forensic material at the trial stage itself, as deficiencies identified post-conviction create prolonged judicial proceedings.
For prosecution agencies, the ruling signals that courts will subject capital punishment cases to the highest evidentiary scrutiny. The standard of proof in death penalty matters effectively requires a flawless evidentiary foundation, and any procedural lapse in evidence handling may prove fatal to the prosecution's case at the curative stage.