Your question is excellent. Courts found many serious deficiencies in the investigation and evidence, which resulted in Surendra Koli being declared “not guilty” (legally: guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt).
Below is a clear and complete breakdown in English:
Major Lapses in the Evidence That Led to Acquittal
1️. Weakness in Witnesses and Evidence Reliability
- The entire case was largely based on circumstantial evidence — no direct eyewitnesses. (TOI)
- The required forensic support (bloodstains, DNA link, biological trace evidence) was weak.
- Supreme Court said: “The circumstantial evidence was not supported by any proper forensic proof.” (Hindustan Times)
2️. Unreliable or Legally Invalid “Confession”
- The confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC was declared not reliable by the court. (Indian Express)
- Koli had been in police custody for over 60 days, raising concerns about voluntariness.
- There was no proper meaningful legal aid provided during custody.
- The crime scene was not secured after the confession.
- Remand papers had contradictions and inconsistencies.
- Confession was not supported by independent evidence or forensic confirmation. (Indian Express)
- The possibility of coercion, tutoring, or torture could not be ruled out. (Indian Express)
3️. Serious Issues with Recoveries (Section 27 Evidence Act)
- Bones, skulls, and remains were recovered from drains and open areas, not from exclusively controlled locations. (New Indian Express)
- For Section 27 to apply, the prosecution must prove:
- Exact statement made by accused
- Exclusive knowledge
These were not properly recorded or proven.
- Supreme Court said only those recoveries are admissible which come from places accessible only to the accused — which was not the case. (India TV)
4️. Forensic & Medical Deficiencies
- Forensics could identify victims but could not connect dismembered remains to Koli. (LiveLaw)
- The prosecution’s claim of “precise dismemberment using technique” did not match an untrained “semi-educated domestic help.” (HT)
- Medical examination of Koli during custody was delayed, inconsistent, and raised the possibility of custodial torture. (Indian Express)
5️. Failure to Investigate Other Possible Angles
- A major potential motive — organ trade — was not investigated by the police. (Indian Express)
- Neighbours and local witnesses were not properly questioned. (Hindustan Times)
- Recovery documents and remand papers had contradictions about timings and procedures. (HT)
- Investigation was described as having “tunnel vision,” ignoring alternative offenders or theories.
6️. Procedural Violations During Evidence Collection
- Crime scene was not secured, allowing contamination. (HT)
- Narco-analysis and brain mapping were conducted without valid judicial oversight and questionable consent. (Indian Express)
- There were repeated inconsistencies: missing timestamps, unspecified locations, contradictory versions in official paperwork. (Indian Express)
7️. Lack of Proper Legal Assistance
- Koli did not receive meaningful legal aid during the crucial stages of interrogation. (Indian Express)
- Lawyers who tried to defend him reportedly faced pressure, and due to poor background, he lacked resources. (pudr.org)
8️. Criminal Law Standard Not Met (“Beyond Reasonable Doubt”)
- Supreme Court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace proof. (HT)
- Investigation appeared biased, incomplete, and sloppy.
- Courts said that “some incriminating material may have been planted or mishandled,” raising doubts about integrity of the evidence. (Indian Express)
Final Conclusion
Due to all these serious deficiencies:
- The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Evidence was legally insufficient, unreliable, and riddled with procedural violations.
- Therefore, both Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court ruled that Surendra Koli must be acquitted as per criminal law standards.
Supreme Court Judgment – Summary & Analysis (Surendra Koli Curative Petition)
Background
The Nithari killings were extremely gruesome — skulls, bones, and human remains of children and young girls were found in a drain near the house.
Multiple sources (India Today, The Indian Express) documented the severity of the case.
Surendra Koli was charged in several cases for murder, sexual assault, and destruction of evidence.
The trial court convicted him, and later, the High Court acquitted him in several cases.
His curative petition before the Supreme Court focused on legal defects in the earlier convictions.
Main Reasons – Why the Supreme Court Acquitted Koli
A. Questionable Legality of Recoveries (Evidence)
The Supreme Court held that the recoveries (bones, knives, etc.) were made from an open drain, which was a public place — not a spot accessible only to Koli.
Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, any recovery must be clearly linked to a properly recorded disclosure statement.
The Court found:
- The disclosure statements were not properly recorded
- The link between the statement and the recovery was incomplete
- The recoveries were therefore inadmissible
Thus, the evidence could not legally be relied upon.
B. Serious Investigative Lapses
The Supreme Court criticised the investigation for multiple failures:
- Important witnesses (household members, neighbours) were not properly examined
- Possible leads — especially the angle of organ trading — were ignored
- The crime scene was not secured in time, leading to contamination and loss of potential evidence
These lapses weakened the entire prosecution case.
C. Unreliable Confession (164 CrPC)
Koli’s confession under Section 164 CrPC was found to be unreliable because:
- He was kept in police custody for over 60 days
- He did not receive meaningful legal assistance
- His medical examination was not conducted at the proper time
- There was a real possibility of coercion or torture
Therefore, the confession could not be considered voluntary, independent, or trustworthy.
D. Weak Forensic Evidence
The forensic examination was limited only to:
- Identifying the victims, NOT linking the remains to Koli
- It did not prove how the bones were cut or whether the accused could have done it.
The Court also questioned the prosecution’s theory that a semi-educated domestic helper without medical training could dismember bodies with such precision.
This scientific weakness created major doubt.
E. Judicial Inconsistencies & “Anomalous Situation”
The Supreme Court observed a key inconsistency:
- In 12 similar cases, the High Court had acquitted Koli because of weak evidence
- Yet in one case, he remained in jail on the basis of the same type of evidence
The Court held that this would create an “anomalous situation” and amount to manifest injustice.
Criminal law requires guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt — suspicion or assumptions cannot substitute evidence.
F. Duty to Avoid Injustice, While Acknowledging Victims’ Pain
While delivering the judgment, the Court acknowledged:
- The crimes were heinous and heart-breaking
- The suffering of victims’ families is very real
- However, the justice system must follow due process and legal standards
- Conviction cannot rest on faulty investigation or incomplete evidence
Justice must be both fair and legally sound.
Final Decision & Impact
The Supreme Court allowed Koli’s curative petition and ordered his release.
This judgment is significant because it highlights:
- Major failures in investigation
- The responsibility of prosecution and police
- The seriousness of curative jurisdiction in preventing “manifest injustice”
- The importance of adhering strictly to evidentiary standards in criminal law
Why the Allahabad High Court Acquitted Surendra Koli
These were the same reasons later accepted by the Supreme Court.
1️. Recoveries Were Legally Invalid (Illegal / Unreliable Recoveries)
The High Court found that:
- Bones, skeleton parts, and other items were recovered from open drains and open areas.
- These were public places where anyone could access them — they were not exclusively accessible by the accused.
- Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there must be a clear link between the accused’s disclosure statement and the actual recovery.
Here, this link was missing.
Therefore, the recoveries were inadmissible in law.
2️. Scientific / Forensic Evidence Did Not Connect Koli to the Crime
The forensic reports could not establish:
- Which weapon caused the murders
- Who performed the dismemberment
- No DNA or blood evidence linked the recovered bones to Koli
In short:
“A crime happened” was proven, but “who committed the crime” was NOT proven.
3️. Confession Was Doubtful (Possibility of Coercion)
Koli’s confession under Section 164 CrPC was found unreliable because:
- He was held in police custody for over 60 days continuously
- Medical check-ups were not done properly
- No independent evidence supported the confession
So the High Court held that the confession was not voluntary.
4️. Major Lapses by the Investigating Agency
The Court stated clearly:
- Neighbours and other important witnesses were not examined properly
- Crime scene was not secured — many samples became contaminated or disappeared
- The “organ trade” angle was ignored intentionally
Due to these huge flaws, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
5️. Circumstantial Evidence Chain Was Incomplete
In circumstantial cases, the law requires:
- A complete and unbroken chain of circumstances
- Each link must point only to the guilt of the accused
- No other logical explanation should remain
But in this case:
- Several links were missing
- Some links could apply to other people as well
- Some links were based on assumptions, not proof
The Court held that the chain was legally incomplete and weak.
6️. Trial Court’s Conviction Was Wrong (Perverse Findings)
The High Court observed:
- The trial court concluded guilt based on assumption → suspicion → conclusion, which is illegal
- It did not properly evaluate evidence
- It ignored fundamental rules of evidence law
Therefore, the conviction could not stand.
7️. Motive Was Not Established at All
The prosecution suggested theories like:
- Cannibalism
- Sexual assault
- Sudden violent behaviour
- Psychological disorder
But the Court said:
- None of these theories had clinical, forensic, eyewitness, or medical proof
Without motive, a circumstantial case becomes even weaker.
8️. Prosecution Did Not Address Alternative Possibilities
For example:
- Organ trade
- Third-party involvement
- Multiple offenders
The High Court said the investigation followed a “tunnel vision” approach.
In criminal law, unless alternative hypotheses are ruled out, conviction is not possible.
High Court’s Final Conclusion
“The evidence does not establish guilt.
Serious lapses in investigation and unreliable recoveries make the conviction unsafe.”
Thus, the High Court acquitted Koli in all cases.
Later, the Supreme Court upheld this reasoning, saying:
“The High Court’s decision was correct — the prosecution failed to prove guilt.”
