SURENDRA KOLI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

SURENDRA KOLI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

The curative jurisdiction was properly invoked because two irreconcilable final outcomes of this Court rested on an identical evidentiary substratum; the Section 164 confession foundational to the conviction is legally tainted (involuntary and barred under Section 24 Evidence Act) and the alleged discoveries under Section 27 were not proved as contemporaneous or reliable; removing those keystones collapses the circumstantial chain, rendering the conviction incompatible with Articles 14 and 21, and therefore the conviction and sentences were set aside and the petitioner acquitted.

Parties
Petitioner: Surendra Koli; Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Curative Petition (crl.) No. 60 of 2025 / Final Judgment (curative Petition Allowed)
Outcome
Curative petition allowed; prior conviction and sentences set aside; petitioner acquitted
Legal Topics
Curative Petition, Curative Jurisdiction Threshold, Manifest Miscarriage of Justice, Confession Under Section 164 Cr PC, Discoveries Under Section 27 Evidence Act, Voluntariness of Confession, Article 21 (fair Procedure), Article 14 (equality), Investigative Lapses
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Procedural Law Curative Petition Curative Jurisdiction Threshold Manifest Miscarriage of Justice Confession Under Section 164 Cr PC +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surendra Koli

Petitioner

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Curative Petition (crl.) No. 60 of 2025 / Final Judgment (curative Petition Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exacting threshold for exercise of curative jurisdiction is met
  2. 2 Whether two inconsistent outcomes of this Court can stand together when based on identical evidentiary foundation
  3. 3 Whether the Section 164 CrPC confession was voluntary and admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The curative jurisdiction was properly invoked because two irreconcilable final outcomes of this Court rested on an identical evidentiary substratum; the Section 164 confession foundational to the conviction is legally tainted (involuntary and barred under Section 24 Evidence Act) and the alleged discoveries under Section 27 were not proved as contemporaneous or reliable; removing those keystones collapses the circumstantial chain, rendering the conviction incompatible with Articles 14 and 21, and therefore the conviction and sentences were set aside and the petitioner acquitted.

Court Disposition

Curative petition allowed; prior conviction and sentences set aside; petitioner acquitted

Orders

  • Judgment dated 15.02.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 and order dated 28.10.2014 in Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014 recalled and set aside
  • Judgment dated 13.02.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 611 of 2007 and judgment dated 11.09.2009 of the High Court in Criminal Confirmation/Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 set aside