ITEM NO.101               COURT NO.6             SECTION II

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2227 OF 2010

SURENDRA KOLI                                     Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. ORS.                                Respondent(s)

WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 608 of 2010 (With office report)

Date: 15/02/2011  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Appellant(s) Dr. Sushil Balwada, Adv. AC

Mr. Vivek K. Tankha (A.S.G.) Mr. T. A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Pratul Shandilya, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kumnanan D., Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.  Mr. Harsh, Adv.  

For the appellant Mr. B. P. Singh Dhakray, Adv.  In SLP (crl) Mr. Shakti Singh Dhakray, Adv.  608 of 2010 Mr. D. B. Vohra, Adv.    

                  For Respondent(s) Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv.  

Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Adv.   

                    Mr. Kamlendra Mishra ,Adv

For Resp No. 1 Mr. R. S. Sodhi, Sr. Adv.  In SLP (Crl) Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Adv 608 of 2010 Mr. Omkar Shrivastava, Adv. For  

Ms. Madhu Moolchandani

-1-

-2-

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the  signed order.   

SLP(Crl) NO. 608 of 2010

Leave granted.

(Deepak Joshi)            (Indu Satija)   Sr. P.A.              Court Master

      (Signed reportable  order is placed on the file )

Reportable    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 2227 OF 2010

SURENDRA KOLI .........Appellant (s)

   Versus  

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ........Respondent (s)

    WITH

  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) 608 of 2010

                O R D E R  

Heard Dr. Sushil Balwada, learned counsel, who has  

appeared for the appellant Surendra Koli in Criminal Appeal  

No. 2227 of 2010.   

The  appellant  Surendra  Koli,  accused  no.  2  and  

Maninder Singh Pandher accused no. 1 were convicted under  

Section 302/364/376 IPC by the  Special Sessions trial no.  

611 of 2007 decided on 13.02.2009 by Additional Sessions  

Judge, Ghaziabad, U.P.  By that judgment death sentence was  

imposed on both these accused.

In  Appeal/Reference  to  the  High  Court  accused  

Surendra  Koli's  death  sentence  was  affirmed  while  the  

accused  Maninder  Singh  Pandher  was  acquitted.   Hence,  

Surendra Koli has filed this Appeal before us.   

The facts of this case are gruesome and horrifying.  

It seems that several children had gone missing over 2 years

from Sector 31, Nithari Village, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida  

from 2005 onwards.  Several of such children were alleged to

-1-

-2-

have been killed by the appellant who is also alleged to  

have chopped and eaten the body parts after cooking them.  

Appellant Surendra Koli was the servant of accused no. 1  

Moninder Singh, and they lived together at D-5, Sector 31,  

Noida.  

The  High  Court  in  the  impugned  judgment  dated  

11.09.2009 has discussed the evidence in great detail and we  

have  carefully  perused  the  same.   It  is  not  necessary  

therefore to again repeat all the facts which have been set  

out  in  the   judgment  of  the  High  Court  except  where  

necessary.  We entirely agree with the findings, conclusion  

and sentence of the High Court so far as accused Surendra  

Koli is concerned.   

Admittedly, there was a confession made by Surendra  

Koli  before  the  Magistrate  under  Section  164  Cr.PC  on  

01.03.2007 and we are satisfied that it was a voluntary  

confession.   The  Magistrate  repeatedly  told  the  accused  

Surendra Koli that he was not bound to make the statement  

and  it  can  be  read   against  him.   In  our  opinion  the  

provisions of Section 164 CrPC have been fully complied with  

while recording the said statement.   

In  the  aforesaid  statement  before  the  Magistrate  

appellant Surendra Koli has admitted in great detail how he

used to kill the girls after luring them inside the House  

no. D-5, Sector 31, Noida by strangulating them, and he  

would then chop up and eat up their body parts after cooking  

them.  Some body parts, clothes and slippers were thrown in

-3-

the enclosed gallery behind the house at D-5, Sector 31,  

Noida.   He  volunteered  to  lead  the  police  team  to  the  

specific  spot  where  he  had  kept  the  articles/body  parts  

hidden.  The police party reached that spot along with the  

appellant.  On his pointing out, 15 skulls and bones were  

recovered, and also a knife was recovered from a water tank  

of a bath room in D-5, Sector 31. On 31.12.2006 during the  

scooping of the drain in front of D-5, bones and chappals  

were recovered.   

He has given graphic description about the several  

murders he has committed.  Surendra Koli was the servant of  

co-accused Maninder Singh Pandher as has been admitted by  

him.  The confession under Section 164 has been corroborated  

in material particulars.  The body parts of the killed girls  

have been found in the gallery behind the house and in  the  

Nala beside the house.   

Weapons like knife have also been recovered.  The  

girls clothes have also been identified.   

Two girls  PW-27 namely Pratibha and PW-28 namely  

Purnima have stated before the trial Court that they were  

also attempted to be lured inside the House D-5 by Surendra

Koli but they refused to enter the house.  This was their  

sheer good luck, for if they would have entered the house  

then they might have met the same fate.  Their evidence  

indicates the modus operandi of the appellant.  

The parents of one Rimpa Haldar had filed a missing  

report  at  the  police  station  on  20.07.2005  stating  that  

their  daughter  Rimpa  aged  about  15 years had gone to do

-4-

menial work in Sector 20 on 08.02.2005 but had not returned.  

Smt Doli Haldar came to know that in D-5, Sector 31 human  

skeleton and clothes had been found.  Hence she went there  

and identified the chunni and bra of her daughter.   

The appellant was charged for the murder of Rimpa  

(amongst others), and was found guilty by both the trial  

Court  and  High  Court.   Although  it  is  a  case  of  

circumstantial  evidence  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  

entire  chain  of  circumstances  connecting  the  accused  

Surendra Koli with the crime has been established by the  

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.   

The DNA test of Rimpa  by CDFD, a pioneer institute  

in Hyderabad matched with that of blood of her parents and  

brother.  The Doctors at AIIMS have put the  parts of the  

deceased girls  which have been recovered by the Doctors of  

AIIMS together.  These bodies have been recovered in the  

presence of the Doctors of AIIMS at the  pointing out by the  

accused Surendra Koli.  Thus, recovery is admissible under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act.  

On  the  facts  of  the  case  we  see  no  reason  to  

interfere with the findings of the trial court and the High  

Court  that  the  appellant  Surendra  Koli  is  guilty  of  

murdering  Rimpa  Haldar.  Both  Courts  have  gone  into  the  

evidence in great detail and we have perused the same.  The  

appellant appears to be a serial killer, and  these cases in  

our opinion fall within the category of rarest of the rare  

cases as laid down in Bachan singh  Vs State of Punjab, 1982  

SCC 689 which has been subsequently followed in Atbir Vs  

Government of NCT of Delhi, 2010 SCC (9) 1.

-5-

The  killings  by  the  appellant  Surendra  Koli  are  

horrifying and barbaric.  He used a definite methodology in  

committing these murders.  He would see small girls passing  

by the house, and taking advantage of their weakness lure  

them inside the house no. D-5, Sector 31, Nithari Village,  

Noida and there he would strangulate them and after killing  

them he tried to have sex with the body and would then cut  

off their body parts and eat them.  Some parts of the body  

were disposed off by throwing them in the passage gallery  

and drain (nala) beside the house.  House no. D-5, Sector 31  

had  become  a  virtual  slaughter  house,  where  innocent  

children were regularly butchered.   

In our opinion, this case clearly falls within the  

category of rarest of rare case and no mercy can be shown to  

the appellant Surendra Koli.  

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION  (CRL.) 608 of 2010

    Leave granted.  

.....................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

.....................J. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 15, 2011