LexSURENDRA KOLI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 939 SURENDRA KOU v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.2227 of 2010) A FEBRUARY 15, 2011 8 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : s.302 - Gruesome murder - Accused charged for C murdering young girls and several other cht1dren - A/legation . that accused used to lure young children inside the house where he would strangulate them and cut off their body parts and eat them - Conviction by courts below uls. 302 and award of death sentence - Held: The accused had made a voluntary D confession before the Magistrate u/s. 164 Cr. P. C. - The confession u/s. 164 was corroborated in material particulars - The accused volunteered to feed the police team to the specific spot where he had hidden the articles/body parts - On his pointing out, 15 skulls and bones were recovered and E also a knife was recovered from a water tank - Some body parts, clothes and slippers thrown in the enclosed gallery behind the house were also recovered - DNA test of victim matched with that o' her parents and brother - The entire chain of circumstances connected the accused with the crime F and was established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt - The killings by the accused were horrifying and barbaric - Case fell within the category of rarest of rare case - Conviction and death sentence upheld. Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1982 SCC 689; Atbir G vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2010 sec (9) 1- relied on 939 H A 940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1982 sec 689 201 o sec (9) 1 Case Law Reference: Relied on Relied on [2011] 2 S.C.R. Para 14 Para 14 B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal c No. 2227 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 11.9.2009 of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, judicature at Allahabad in Criminal (Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 & R. No. 3 of 2009. WITH SLP (Crl.) No. 608 of 2010. Vivek K. Thanka, ASG, Ratnakar Dash, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, D AAG, Dr. Sushil Balwada, AC, T.A. Khan, Pratul Shandilya, Sumeer Sodhi, Vaibhav Srivastava, Kumnan D., Arvind Kumar Sharma, Harsh, B.P. Singh Dhakray, Shakti Singh Dhakray, D.B. Vohra, Rajeev K. Dubay, Kamlendra Mishra, Manisha Bhadari, Omkar Shrivastava (for Madhu Moolchandani) for the E appearing parties. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER F 1. Heard Dr. Sushil Balwada, learned counsel, who has appeared for the appellant Surendra Koli in Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010. 2. The appellant Surendra Koli, accused no. 2 and G 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. H SURENDRA KOLi v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 941 3. In Appeal/Reference to the High Court accused A Surendra Koli's death sentence was affirmed while the accused Maninder Singh Pandher was acquitted. Hence, Surendra Koli -has filed this Appeal before us. 4. The facts of this case are gruesome and horrifying. It seems that several children had gone missing over 2 years 8 from Sector 31, Nithari Village, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida from 2005 onwards. Several of such children were alleged to 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 C Moninder Singh, and they lived together at D-5, Sector 31, Noida. 5. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2009 has discussed the evidence in great detail and we 0 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. E 6. 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 F 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. 7. In the aforesaid statement before the Magistrate appellant Surendra Koli has admi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.