eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

Nithari case

created Saturday May 23, 05:04 by sudhanshu singh


0


Rating

434 words
2 completed
00:00
SLP(Crl) NO. 608 of 2010 Leave granted
 
(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 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.
 
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.

saving score / loading statistics ...