Supreme Court sets aside Surendra Kohli conviction in Nithari case Final: A look at two contradictory Allahabad court judgments | delhi news

Bandar and Kohli, who were arrested in the same month, were accused of kidnapping and raping children and women, committing acts of cannibalism, and disposing of their bodies in the drain. Cooley allegedly killed the girls and dismembered their bodies before throwing them in the backyard.

The police had lodged 19 FIRs against the two in connection with alleged crimes against 19 girls. Kohli was charged in 13 cases and Pandhir in six cases.

Within 14 years, two benches of the Allahabad High Court had delivered vastly different judgments in the case.

In 2023, the Allahabad High Court acquitted Kohli in 12 cases and Bandar in two. Both of them had earlier been awarded death penalty in these cases of rape, murder and destruction of evidence, among others, by a special CBI court in Ghaziabad. The root cause of the acquittal was a “botched” investigation, forged coerced confessions, and procedural lapses by the investigating agency.

However, in 2009, the Allahabad High Court took a contrary position, seeing importance in the prosecution case and the evidence presented by them – including Kohli’s confession. While the bench set aside Pandher’s conviction, it affirmed Kohli’s sentence and conviction for murder and rape.

Here is a look at the two rulings:

Ruling 2009

The Allahabad High Court in 2009 examined four incriminating circumstances relied upon by the trial court for Pandher and 12 incriminating circumstances for Kohli.

For Pandheer, the incriminating circumstances were that he was continuously residing at the Noida residence where Kohli was living with him as a domestic helper until the murders were uncovered; That dozens of murders have been committed in this particular kothi; The body parts were scattered around the house after being wrapped in polythene. Kohli’s confession statement condemns Bandheer. In all four cases, the Supreme Court found that there was no admissible evidence to substantiate the allegations.

As for Cooley, of the 12 incriminating circumstances relied upon by the lower court, the Supreme Court upheld all but one. The circumstances of the conviction included the following: the finding of the minor’s clothes, which were identified by her parents; Cooley’s confession statement; And that Cooley was accustomed to standing outside the house trying to lure girls and children under the pretext of arranging work and other temptations for them. It also included recovering skulls, bones, hair, and clothes from around the house. Comparing the DNA of the victim’s remains with those of her relatives; Cooley’s demonstration of how he dismembered bodies to the committee; The knife and ax were recovered with the help of Colley.

Referring to the witness statements, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving 11 out of 12 incriminating circumstances.

It was only on Kohli’s showing of dismemberment of the bodies, where the trial court relied on the testimonies of forensic expert Manish Kumath and AIIMS assistant professor Dr Sanjeev Lalwani, that the apex court “avoided” considering the circumstances as such evidence was not admissible under the Evidence Act.

Rule 2023

While acquitting Kohli in 12 cases, the Allahabad High Court in 2023 had pointed out the “botched” investigation where “basic norms of evidence collection were blatantly flouted” for choosing “the easy path of implicating a poor house servant by demonizing him…”.

Some of the gaps noted by the department are:

– The prosecution case is based on the confession made by Kohli to the UP Police in December 2006, whereby the procedure required to be followed to record the disclosure of the accused, leading to the recovery of biological remains, such as skulls, bones, skeleton, etc., was fully implemented.

– No motive was determined on the part of the accused.

– Colley remained in police custody for 60 days – from December 29, 2006 to January 14, 2007 – but was not medically examined to rule out the possibility that he had been subjected to physical torture.

– Kohli retracted his confession and claimed that he was brutally tortured in police custody. It is worth noting that the retraction of his confession was not taken into account by the Supreme Court in 2009, when it upheld his conviction. I have concluded that the confessional statement was in accordance with due process, was supported in material detail by other convincing and reliable evidence, and was voluntary and truthful.

On the other hand, the 2023 ruling ruled that Kohli’s confession “is inconsistent with the evidence on record and therefore cannot be treated as truthful.”

– There is no independent proof of murder, rape or cannibalism in the confession with other evidence on record.

– The absence of any disclosure statement by Cooley; Failure to specify the time, place and contents of the disclosure; The absence of independent witnesses and a contradictory version of the contents of the information provided. In the absence of a disclosure statement, the recovery of biological remains, knife, etc. fails the test under the Evidence Act to be considered evidence.

– Drug analysis and brain mapping tests were performed on Colley while he was in police custody without the presence of a judge and, therefore, cannot be considered as voluntary consent on Colley’s part, making it inadmissible evidence.

The Supreme Court confirmed the Allahabad court’s acquittal for 2023 in July this year.

(With inputs from Nirbhay Thakur)