Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1308
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ..……….OF 2025
@DIARY NO.49297 OF 2025
IN
R.P. (CRL.) NO.395/2014
IN
CRL. A. NO.2227 OF 2010
SURENDRA KOLI …PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH,J.
1. Delay condoned.
This curative petition presents an exceptional case
for the exercise of our curative jurisdiction. The
petitioner shows that a manifest miscarriage of
justice endures and that two sets of outcomes resting
on the same evidentiary foundation cannot lawfully
coexist. When final orders of this Court speak with
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.11.11
17:50:19 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 1 of 26
discordant voices on an identical record, the integrity
of adjudication is imperilled, and public confidence is
shaken. In such a situation, intervention ex debito
justitiae is not an act of discretion but a
constitutional duty. We therefore entertain this
petition to preserve the purity of this Court’s process
and to vindicate the rule of law.
2. The curative jurisdiction of this Court exists to
prevent abuse of process and to cure a gross
miscarriage of justice. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v.
1
Ashok Hurra
, the Constitution Bench of this Court
recognised that this power flows from the inherent
authority of this Court to do complete justice and to
protect the integrity of its judgments. However, the
constitutional source of this power is coherent and
limited. Article 129 of the Constitution of India
(hereinafter “The Constitution”) declares this Court to
be a court of record with inherent powers to preserve
the purity of its process. Article 142 of the
Constitution empowers this Court to make such
orders as are necessary for doing complete justice.
Article 137 of the Constitution recognises the power
1
(2002) 4 SCC 388
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 2 of 26
of review and marks its limits. Article 145 of the
Constitution of India authorises the framing of rules.
Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, titled
“ Curative Petition” prescribes the filing requirements,
the certification by a Senior Advocate, and the
preliminary circulation to a bench as indicated in
Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra). These provisions together
sustain a narrow jurisdiction that may be invoked
only after review has failed to correct a grave defect.
3. Moreover, we must emphasize that Rupa Ashok Hurra
(Supra ) makes it clear that a curative petition is not a
second review. Finality remains the rule and
intervention is reserved only for very strong reasons
that strike at the legitimacy of the adjudicatory
process. The court has stated that only certain
foundational circumstances demand relief as a
matter of justice. One is a violation of natural justice
where a person is adversely affected without being
heard or without proper notice. Another is a case
where a Judge failed to disclose a connection with the
subject matter or with a party which gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension of bias. The instances are
illustrative and not exhaustive. The guiding principle
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 3 of 26
for the exercise of curative jurisdiction is the duty of
this Court to avert manifest injustice.
4. The controlling test is whether the earlier decision
produces a result that offends the conscience of this
Court because of a fundamental defect in process or
because of a grave miscarriage of justice. Such
defects may appear where outcomes are
irreconcilably inconsistent on the same substratum
of facts and evidence or where material
circumstances bearing on fairness and reliability
were overlooked or where the guarantees of equality
and due process under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution stand compromised. Even when leave
to proceed is granted, the inquiry remains narrow.
This Court does not sit in appeal over its own final
judgment and does not reappraise evidence as if in a
second appeal. The question is whether intervention
is necessary to vindicate the rule of law and to restore
confidence in the administration of justice. With
these principles in view we shall now examine
whether the present case meets the exacting
threshold for the exercise of the curative jurisdiction
of this Court.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 4 of 26
5. This curative petition arises from Criminal Appeal No.
2227 of 2010 decided on 15.02.2011, by which this
Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and
sentence of death in the Rimpa Haldar case. The
review petition against this order was dismissed on
28.10.2014 in Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014.
On 28.01.2015, the High Court commuted the death
sentence to imprisonment for life. In twelve
companion prosecutions founded on the same
confession and recoveries, the High Court acquitted
the petitioner on 16.10.2023, and on 30.07.2025,
this Court dismissed the State appeals and affirmed
those acquittals. The present petition is brought on
the footing that irreconcilable outcomes have arisen
on an identical evidentiary framework and that a
manifest miscarriage of justice remains despite the
dismissal of review.
6. The Nithari Case Background:
6.1. Surendra Koli, the petitioner herein, was
employed as a domestic help at House D5,
Sector 31, Noida. The house was owned and
occupied by one Moninder Singh Pandher, the
employer of the petitioner. From early 2005
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 5 of 26
residents of Nithari began reporting that women
and children were missing. In March 2005,
children in the neighbourhood playing cricket
noticed a human hand in the narrow open strip
between Houses D5 and D6 and the Jal Board
residential quarters. On 03.12.2006, a human
hand was again noticed during drain cleaning
on the main road in front of the row of
bungalows D1 to D6.
6.2. On 29.12.2006, the local police took the
petitioner into custody in connection with FIR
No. 838 of 2006 concerning the disappearance
of Payal, one of the victims. On the same day
Pandher was detained outside D5. When the
police and panch witnesses reached D5, a large
crowd had already gathered and digging was
underway in the open strip between D5, D6 and
the Jal Board compound. Multiple skulls and
bones with footwear and clothes were recovered
from that strip on 29.12.2006. A knife was
recovered from beneath the terrace water tank
of D5. On 31.12.2006 further human remains
and articles were taken out from the covered
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 6 of 26
storm water drain in front of Houses D1 to D6.
Multiple FIRs were registered on 30.12.2006 for
different missing persons.
6.3. On 09.01.2007, the State transferred
investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946. A team from the
Forensic Science Laboratory at Agra examined
D5 between 04.01.2007 and 06.01.2007. Teams
from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences
and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
assisted the CBI in searches at and around D5
through mid-January 2007.
6.4. Thirteen trials followed. Each proceeded on a
common evidentiary foundation that comprised
the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries and
the confessional statement under Section 164 of
2
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . The
present matter concerns the case relating to
Rimpa Haldar, a minor who went missing in
2005.
2
CrPC
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 7 of 26
7. First round of litigation (Rimpa Haldar case)
7.1. By judgment dated 13.02.2009 in Sessions Trial
No. 611 of 2007, the Trial Court convicted the
petitioner for the death of Rimpa Haldar under
Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 and imposed the death
sentence. The Trial Court relied on a confession
recorded on 01.03.2007 under Section 164 of
the CrPC, on recoveries said to have been made
at the petitioner’s instance from House No. D-5,
Sector 31, Noida, and on a chain of
circumstantial facts. The confession runs to
several pages and states that the petitioner
lured the victim Rimpa Haldar into D-5,
strangled her with a chunni, engaged in sexual
assault after death, dismembered the body, and
disposed parts in the rear gallery and in the
stormwater drain. The Magistrate recorded
preliminary questions on voluntariness. The
Trial Court treated the confession as voluntary
and truthful and found corroboration in the
recovery of skulls and bones from the rear
3
In short “IPC”
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 8 of 26
gallery and drain, in the identification of the
victim’s clothing by relatives, and in DNA
profiling reported by the Centre for DNA
Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad,
which matched remains with the blood samples
of the victim’s parents.
7.2. On 11.09.2009, the High Court affirmed the
conviction and sentence of death of the
Petitioner and acquitted the co-accused,
Moninder Singh Pandher, in this case. The High
Court treated the confession under Section 164
CrPC as voluntary and reliable. It also found
corroboration in material particulars. It relied
on recoveries of skulls, bones, clothing and
footwear from the enclosed gallery behind D-5
and from the adjacent drain, identification of
articles by relatives of victims including Payal,
one of the victims, and the testimony of two
young girls, PW-27 Pratibha and PW-28
Purnima, who described attempts by the
petitioner to lure them towards D-5, which the
High Court viewed as revealing the Petitioner’s
modus operandi. The High Court also noted
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 9 of 26
forensic linkage through DNA analysis and held
that the circumstantial chain was complete. In
acquitting Moninder Singh Pandher, the High
Court recorded that there was no substantive
evidence connecting him with the crime, that
the petitioner’s confession was not admissible
against a co-accused, that recoveries were
pursuant to the petitioner’s disclosure, and that
no overt act or presence of Pandher was proved
in relation to this offence.
7.3. On 15.02.2011, a two-Judge Bench of this
Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of
2010 and affirmed the conviction and sentence
of death. This Court recorded that the
confession under Section 164 CrPC was
voluntary and that statutory safeguards were
observed. It noted the petitioner’s detailed
admissions and his leading of the police to the
place where multiple skulls and bones were
recovered, as well as the seizure of a knife from
D-5. It referred to the evidence of PW-27 and
PW-28 as indicative of the petitioner’s modus
operandi. It relied on DNA analysis by the
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 10 of 26
Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics
matching remains to the blood samples of
Rimpa Haldar’s parents and brother, and on the
role of doctors from the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences in assembling recovered parts.
The recoveries were treated as admissible under
4
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .
Characterising the petitioner as a serial killer,
this Court held that the case fell within the
“rarest of rare” category and upheld the
sentence of death.
7.4. On 28.10.2014, after an open-court hearing,
this Court dismissed Review Petition (Crl.) No.
395 of 2014. The Court reiterated the narrow
compass of review under Article 137 of the
Constitution, found no error apparent on the
face of the record, and declined to revisit
findings on voluntariness or evidentiary
appreciation. The submission regarding
ineffective assistance at trial was rejected at the
review stage.
4
Evidence Act
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 11 of 26
7.5. Subsequently, on 28.01.2015, in writ
proceedings challenging the rejection of mercy
petition of the Petitioner, the High Court
commuted the sentence of death in this case to
imprisonment for life. The conviction continued
to stand. Special Leave Petitions, SLP (Crl.) No.
1444 of 2016 and SLP (Crl.) No. 7456 of 2016,
filed against the judgment dated 28.01.2015 of
the High Court, remain pending before this
Court.
8. The other twelve cases
8.1. Between 2010 and 2021, the petitioner was
tried and convicted in twelve additional capital
cases arising from the same circumstances in
the Nithari area at House No. D-5, Sector-31,
Noida. These trials proceeded on the same
evidentiary foundation, namely the confession
recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and
alleged discoveries and recoveries said to have
been made at the petitioner’s instance under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In two of these
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 12 of 26
cases the co-accused, Moninder Singh Pandher,
was also convicted by the Trial Court.
8.2. By a set of judgments dated 16.10.2023, the
High Court allowed the petitioner’s appeals in
all twelve matters and acquitted the Petitioner.
The High Court held that the confession under
Section 164 CrPC could not be treated as
voluntary or reliable. It recorded that the
petitioner had been kept in uninterrupted police
custody for about sixty days before the
confession was recorded, that there was no
meaningful or private access to legal aid, that
the recording Magistrate did not express the
clear satisfaction on voluntariness that Section
164 CrPC requires, and that the Investigating
Officer was brought into the room at the outset
and kept immediately available outside, which
undermined voluntariness. The High Court
noted repeated assertions within the confession
of tutoring and references to torture and
concluded that the bar under Section 24 of the
Evidence Act was attracted.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 13 of 26
8.3. The High Court further held that the alleged
discoveries and recoveries under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act were inadmissible and
unreliable. The prosecution did not prove any
contemporaneous disclosure statement. There
were material contradictions between the
panchnama narrative and the remand papers,
including a reference to a joint disclosure by
both accused that could not stand with the later
version that the petitioner alone led to
discovery. The evidence showed that members
of the public and the police were already aware
of body parts at the recovery site and that
excavation had commenced before the petitioner
arrived. The principal site lay in an open strip
behind D-5 and D-6 and in the drain on the
main road, which was not under the petitioner’s
exclusive domain. These features negated the
essential element of discovery by the accused.
8.4. On the forensic record, the High Court found an
absence of corroboration. Searches of D-5 by
expert teams did not yield human bloodstains
or human remains that would be consistent
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 14 of 26
with multiple homicides and dismemberment
inside the house. There was no incriminating
trace in the kitchen or on utensils. A semen
stain on a quilt did not match with the petitioner
or the identified victims. The DNA work
undertaken by the Centre for DNA
Fingerprinting and Diagnostics linked certain
remains to families of missing persons but did
not connect the petitioner to the actus reus
within D-5. The High Court therefore held that
the circumstantial chain was incomplete.
8.5. The High Court also found that the recoveries of
a knife and an axe did not advance the
prosecution case. Neither implement bore
human blood or tissue. The prosecution did not
establish that the cut marks on bones, if any,
were consistent with those implements or that
these specific implements were used. There was
no independent proof that the petitioner
possessed the skill or capability to carry out the
precise acts alleged with those implements.
Taken with the absence of incriminating traces
within D-5, the supposed weapon link failed.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 15 of 26
The High Court criticised the investigation as
botched and shifting, and recorded that
material avenues, including the organ-trade
angle noted by a committee of the Ministry of
Women and Child Development, were not
probed. In two of the twelve matters the High
Court also acquitted Moninder Singh Pandher.
8.6. The State preferred appeals against the
acquittals. By an order dated 30.07.2025, a
three-Judge Bench of this Court dismissed
those appeals. The acquittals recorded by the
High Court on 16.10.2023 have therefore
attained finality.
9. In view of the foregoing narrative, the petitioner has
shown grounds that lie within the narrow compass of
the curative jurisdiction recognised in Rupa Ashok
). What is asserted is not a plea for
Hurra (Supra
reappraisal of evidence but a fundamental defect that
impeaches the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
The petitioner points to outcomes of this Court that
cannot be reconciled on the same evidentiary
substratum and to defects that bear directly on
voluntariness, admissibility and investigative
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 16 of 26
fairness. Such inconsistency engages the guarantees
of equality and due process under Article 14 and
Article 21 of the Constitution and warrants
consideration ex debito justitiae . The petition carries
the averments and certification required by Order
XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and has
been placed before us in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. We are therefore satisfied that
the threshold for invoking the curative jurisdiction is
met and we proceed to examine the merits.
10. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and
having closely examined the record of the present
case along with the subsequent judgments to which
reference has been made, we are satisfied that the
determinative question is whether two sets of
outcomes of this Court can stand together when they
rest on an identical evidentiary foundation. The first
is the decision of 15.02.2011 affirming the
petitioner’s conviction and death sentence on the
strength of a Section 164 CrPC confession and
supposed discoveries under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. The second is the order dated
30.07.2025 by a three-Judge Bench dismissing the
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 17 of 26
State’s appeals and thereby affirming twelve
acquittals where the very same confession and the
very same class of Section 27 material were rejected
as legally unreliable. The tension is not peripheral. It
goes to the integrity of adjudication. In such a
situation, the curative jurisdiction recognised in
Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra) is rightly invoked. The
object is not to reopen evidence as in a second appeal.
The object is to cure a manifest miscarriage of justice
where inconsistent results persist on the same
foundation and undermine public confidence in the
administration of justice.
11. We accordingly test the present conviction against
the legal defects that led the High Court, and
thereafter this Court, to discard the common
evidentiary pillars in the companion matters. Those
defects were not factual peculiarities confined to
other victims. They were structural infirmities
inherent in the mode of proof relied upon across the
Nithari prosecutions. The petitioner’s Section 164
CrPC statement was recorded after about sixty days
of uninterrupted police custody without meaningful
legal aid. The recording Magistrate did not record the
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 18 of 26
clear, unqualified satisfaction that the statute
demands. The Investigating Officer’s proximity to the
recording process, including his presence at the
outset and his ready access, thereafter, compromised
the environment of voluntariness. The text of the
statement itself repeatedly adverted to tutoring and
to prior coercion. These features attracted the bar
under Section 24 of the Evidence Act and rendered
the confession inadmissible as a matter of law. We
find no principled basis on which the same statement
can be treated as voluntary and reliable in this case
when it has been judicially discredited in all others.
12. The second pillar concerns the alleged discoveries
and recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The High Court found that no contemporaneous
disclosure memo was proved. The narrative in the
later-prepared seizure memorandum conflicted with
the remand papers, which recorded a joint disclosure
by both accused. The evidence also showed that the
police and members of the public already knew that
bones and articles lay in the open strip and that
excavation had begun before the petitioner arrived.
These features negate the essential element of
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 19 of 26
discovery by the accused and reduce the exercise to
a seizure from an already known place. Those
findings were upheld when the State’s appeals were
dismissed on 30.07.2025. The present conviction
rests on the same recovery architecture. Once the
disclosure is not contemporaneously proved, once
prior knowledge is established, and once
contradictions infect the record, Section 27 of the
Evidence Act ceases to operate. The legal conclusion
cannot change from case to case when the premise is
identical.
13. The forensic analysis reinforces that conclusion.
Extensive searches of D-5 by expert teams did not
yield human bloodstains, remains, or transfer
patterns consistent with multiple homicides and
dismemberment inside the house. The DNA work
undertaken by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and
Diagnostics in Hyderabad linked certain remains to
families of missing persons. That science aided only
identification. It did not prove authorship of homicide
by the petitioner within D-5. Knives and an axe were
exhibited without proof of blood, tissue, or hair
consistent with use in the alleged crimes. There was
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 20 of 26
no credible chain of custody or expert testimony
establishing that a domestic help with no medical
training could perform the precise dismemberment
described. These gaps were central to the acquittals
in the twelve cases. They are equally present here.
14. We add that the High Court’s critique of the
investigation was not rhetorical excess. It was
anchored in record-based deficiencies that bear
directly on fairness and reliability. The failure to
secure prompt and independent medical
documentation during the long spell of police
custody, the perfunctory legal-aid arrangement at the
moment of confession, the presence and influence of
the Investigating Officer during the Section 164
procedure, the contradictions in remand and
recovery papers, and the neglect of material avenues
of inquiry, including the organ-trade angle flagged by
a governmental committee, cumulatively undermine
confidence in the prosecution’s case theory. We find
ourselves in agreement with that assessment. The
same infirmities, viewed through the lens of the
present record, cannot yield a different legal
conclusion.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 21 of 26
15. We must emphasize that Article 21 of the
Constitution insists on a fair, just and reasonable
procedure. That insistence is at its acutest where
capital punishment is imposed. Although the
petitioner’s death sentence in this case was
commuted to imprisonment for life on 28.01.2015,
the conviction continues to carry the gravest
consequences. To allow a conviction to stand on
evidentiary basis that this Court has since rejected
as involuntary or inadmissible in the very same fact-
matrix offends Article 21 of the Constitution. It also
violates Article 14 of the Constitution, since like cases
must be treated alike. Arbitrary disparity in outcomes
on an identical record is inimical to equality before
the law. The curative jurisdiction exists to prevent
precisely such anomalies from hardening into
precedent.
16. We are mindful of finality. We are equally mindful
that curative relief is exceptional and proceeds on
narrow grounds. The present case crosses that
exacting threshold. The confession that anchored the
conviction is legally tainted on grounds already
accepted by this Court in the companion matters.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 22 of 26
The supposed discoveries do not satisfy the statutory
preconditions for admissibility. The forensic and
investigative record does not supply the missing
links. Once those keystones are removed, the
circumstantial chain no longer holds. The conviction
cannot be sustained without departing from
principles that now stand authoritatively applied to
indistinguishable prosecutions arising out of the
same occurrence. For these reasons, we hold that the
petitioner has established a fundamental defect that
impeaches the integrity of the adjudicatory process
and that relief is warranted ex debito justitiae within
the parameters of Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra).
17. The offences in Nithari were heinous, and the
suffering of the families is beyond measure. It is a
matter of deep regret that despite prolonged
investigation, the identity of the actual perpetrator
has not been established in a manner that meets the
legal standards. Criminal law does not permit
conviction on conjecture or on a hunch. Suspicion,
however grave, cannot replace proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Courts cannot prefer expediency
over legality. The presumption of innocence endures
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 23 of 26
until guilt is proved through admissible and reliable
evidence, and when the proof fails the only lawful
outcome is to set aside the conviction even in a case
involving horrific crimes.
18. At this juncture, we must remark on our abiding faith
in the capacity of police and investigative agencies of
our country. When investigations are timely,
professional and constitutionally compliant, even the
most difficult mysteries can be solved and many
crimes can be prevented by early intervention. It is,
therefore, genuinely unfortunate that in the present
matter negligence and delay corroded the fact-finding
process and foreclosed avenues that might have
identified the true offender. The scene was not
secured before excavation began, the alleged
disclosure was not contemporaneously recorded, the
remand papers carried contradictory versions, and
the petitioner was kept in prolonged police custody
without a timely, court-directed medical
examination. Crucial scientific opportunities were
lost when post-mortem material and other forensic
outputs were not promptly and properly brought on
record and when searches of D-5 yielded no
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 24 of 26
incriminating traces that could be forensically
anchored to the alleged events. The investigation did
not adequately examine obvious witnesses from the
household and neighbourhood and did not pursue
material leads, including the organ-trade angle
flagged by a governmental committee. Each lapse
weakened the provenance and reliability of the
evidence and narrowed the path to the truth.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the curative petition
is allowed.
20. The judgment dated 15.02.2011 in Criminal Appeal
No. 2227 of 2010 and the order dated 28.10.2014 in
Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014 are recalled and
set aside.
21. Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 is allowed. The
judgment dated 13.02.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 611
of 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad, and the judgment dated 11.09.2009
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Criminal Confirmation/Appeal No. 1475 of 2009
are set aside.
22. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges under
Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the IPC. All
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 25 of 26
sentences and fines imposed thereunder stand
quashed.
23. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case or proceeding. The
Registry shall communicate this judgment forthwith
to the Superintendent of the jail concerned and to the
Trial Court for immediate compliance.
24. In view of this acquittal, SLP (Crl.) No. 1444 of 2016
and SLP (Crl.) No. 7456 of 2016 arising from the
judgment dated 28.01.2015 stand disposed of as
infructuous.
25. All pending applications stand disposed of.
……………………………………..CJI.
[BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI]
………………………………………..J.
[SURYA KANT]
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 11, 2025
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 26 of 26
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ..……….OF 2025
@DIARY NO.49297 OF 2025
IN
R.P. (CRL.) NO.395/2014
IN
CRL. A. NO.2227 OF 2010
SURENDRA KOLI …PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH,J.
1. Delay condoned.
This curative petition presents an exceptional case
for the exercise of our curative jurisdiction. The
petitioner shows that a manifest miscarriage of
justice endures and that two sets of outcomes resting
on the same evidentiary foundation cannot lawfully
coexist. When final orders of this Court speak with
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.11.11
17:50:19 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 1 of 26
discordant voices on an identical record, the integrity
of adjudication is imperilled, and public confidence is
shaken. In such a situation, intervention ex debito
justitiae is not an act of discretion but a
constitutional duty. We therefore entertain this
petition to preserve the purity of this Court’s process
and to vindicate the rule of law.
2. The curative jurisdiction of this Court exists to
prevent abuse of process and to cure a gross
miscarriage of justice. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v.
1
Ashok Hurra
, the Constitution Bench of this Court
recognised that this power flows from the inherent
authority of this Court to do complete justice and to
protect the integrity of its judgments. However, the
constitutional source of this power is coherent and
limited. Article 129 of the Constitution of India
(hereinafter “The Constitution”) declares this Court to
be a court of record with inherent powers to preserve
the purity of its process. Article 142 of the
Constitution empowers this Court to make such
orders as are necessary for doing complete justice.
Article 137 of the Constitution recognises the power
1
(2002) 4 SCC 388
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 2 of 26
of review and marks its limits. Article 145 of the
Constitution of India authorises the framing of rules.
Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, titled
“ Curative Petition” prescribes the filing requirements,
the certification by a Senior Advocate, and the
preliminary circulation to a bench as indicated in
Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra). These provisions together
sustain a narrow jurisdiction that may be invoked
only after review has failed to correct a grave defect.
3. Moreover, we must emphasize that Rupa Ashok Hurra
(Supra ) makes it clear that a curative petition is not a
second review. Finality remains the rule and
intervention is reserved only for very strong reasons
that strike at the legitimacy of the adjudicatory
process. The court has stated that only certain
foundational circumstances demand relief as a
matter of justice. One is a violation of natural justice
where a person is adversely affected without being
heard or without proper notice. Another is a case
where a Judge failed to disclose a connection with the
subject matter or with a party which gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension of bias. The instances are
illustrative and not exhaustive. The guiding principle
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 3 of 26
for the exercise of curative jurisdiction is the duty of
this Court to avert manifest injustice.
4. The controlling test is whether the earlier decision
produces a result that offends the conscience of this
Court because of a fundamental defect in process or
because of a grave miscarriage of justice. Such
defects may appear where outcomes are
irreconcilably inconsistent on the same substratum
of facts and evidence or where material
circumstances bearing on fairness and reliability
were overlooked or where the guarantees of equality
and due process under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution stand compromised. Even when leave
to proceed is granted, the inquiry remains narrow.
This Court does not sit in appeal over its own final
judgment and does not reappraise evidence as if in a
second appeal. The question is whether intervention
is necessary to vindicate the rule of law and to restore
confidence in the administration of justice. With
these principles in view we shall now examine
whether the present case meets the exacting
threshold for the exercise of the curative jurisdiction
of this Court.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 4 of 26
5. This curative petition arises from Criminal Appeal No.
2227 of 2010 decided on 15.02.2011, by which this
Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and
sentence of death in the Rimpa Haldar case. The
review petition against this order was dismissed on
28.10.2014 in Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014.
On 28.01.2015, the High Court commuted the death
sentence to imprisonment for life. In twelve
companion prosecutions founded on the same
confession and recoveries, the High Court acquitted
the petitioner on 16.10.2023, and on 30.07.2025,
this Court dismissed the State appeals and affirmed
those acquittals. The present petition is brought on
the footing that irreconcilable outcomes have arisen
on an identical evidentiary framework and that a
manifest miscarriage of justice remains despite the
dismissal of review.
6. The Nithari Case Background:
6.1. Surendra Koli, the petitioner herein, was
employed as a domestic help at House D5,
Sector 31, Noida. The house was owned and
occupied by one Moninder Singh Pandher, the
employer of the petitioner. From early 2005
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 5 of 26
residents of Nithari began reporting that women
and children were missing. In March 2005,
children in the neighbourhood playing cricket
noticed a human hand in the narrow open strip
between Houses D5 and D6 and the Jal Board
residential quarters. On 03.12.2006, a human
hand was again noticed during drain cleaning
on the main road in front of the row of
bungalows D1 to D6.
6.2. On 29.12.2006, the local police took the
petitioner into custody in connection with FIR
No. 838 of 2006 concerning the disappearance
of Payal, one of the victims. On the same day
Pandher was detained outside D5. When the
police and panch witnesses reached D5, a large
crowd had already gathered and digging was
underway in the open strip between D5, D6 and
the Jal Board compound. Multiple skulls and
bones with footwear and clothes were recovered
from that strip on 29.12.2006. A knife was
recovered from beneath the terrace water tank
of D5. On 31.12.2006 further human remains
and articles were taken out from the covered
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 6 of 26
storm water drain in front of Houses D1 to D6.
Multiple FIRs were registered on 30.12.2006 for
different missing persons.
6.3. On 09.01.2007, the State transferred
investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946. A team from the
Forensic Science Laboratory at Agra examined
D5 between 04.01.2007 and 06.01.2007. Teams
from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences
and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
assisted the CBI in searches at and around D5
through mid-January 2007.
6.4. Thirteen trials followed. Each proceeded on a
common evidentiary foundation that comprised
the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries and
the confessional statement under Section 164 of
2
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . The
present matter concerns the case relating to
Rimpa Haldar, a minor who went missing in
2005.
2
CrPC
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 7 of 26
7. First round of litigation (Rimpa Haldar case)
7.1. By judgment dated 13.02.2009 in Sessions Trial
No. 611 of 2007, the Trial Court convicted the
petitioner for the death of Rimpa Haldar under
Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 and imposed the death
sentence. The Trial Court relied on a confession
recorded on 01.03.2007 under Section 164 of
the CrPC, on recoveries said to have been made
at the petitioner’s instance from House No. D-5,
Sector 31, Noida, and on a chain of
circumstantial facts. The confession runs to
several pages and states that the petitioner
lured the victim Rimpa Haldar into D-5,
strangled her with a chunni, engaged in sexual
assault after death, dismembered the body, and
disposed parts in the rear gallery and in the
stormwater drain. The Magistrate recorded
preliminary questions on voluntariness. The
Trial Court treated the confession as voluntary
and truthful and found corroboration in the
recovery of skulls and bones from the rear
3
In short “IPC”
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 8 of 26
gallery and drain, in the identification of the
victim’s clothing by relatives, and in DNA
profiling reported by the Centre for DNA
Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad,
which matched remains with the blood samples
of the victim’s parents.
7.2. On 11.09.2009, the High Court affirmed the
conviction and sentence of death of the
Petitioner and acquitted the co-accused,
Moninder Singh Pandher, in this case. The High
Court treated the confession under Section 164
CrPC as voluntary and reliable. It also found
corroboration in material particulars. It relied
on recoveries of skulls, bones, clothing and
footwear from the enclosed gallery behind D-5
and from the adjacent drain, identification of
articles by relatives of victims including Payal,
one of the victims, and the testimony of two
young girls, PW-27 Pratibha and PW-28
Purnima, who described attempts by the
petitioner to lure them towards D-5, which the
High Court viewed as revealing the Petitioner’s
modus operandi. The High Court also noted
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 9 of 26
forensic linkage through DNA analysis and held
that the circumstantial chain was complete. In
acquitting Moninder Singh Pandher, the High
Court recorded that there was no substantive
evidence connecting him with the crime, that
the petitioner’s confession was not admissible
against a co-accused, that recoveries were
pursuant to the petitioner’s disclosure, and that
no overt act or presence of Pandher was proved
in relation to this offence.
7.3. On 15.02.2011, a two-Judge Bench of this
Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of
2010 and affirmed the conviction and sentence
of death. This Court recorded that the
confession under Section 164 CrPC was
voluntary and that statutory safeguards were
observed. It noted the petitioner’s detailed
admissions and his leading of the police to the
place where multiple skulls and bones were
recovered, as well as the seizure of a knife from
D-5. It referred to the evidence of PW-27 and
PW-28 as indicative of the petitioner’s modus
operandi. It relied on DNA analysis by the
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 10 of 26
Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics
matching remains to the blood samples of
Rimpa Haldar’s parents and brother, and on the
role of doctors from the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences in assembling recovered parts.
The recoveries were treated as admissible under
4
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .
Characterising the petitioner as a serial killer,
this Court held that the case fell within the
“rarest of rare” category and upheld the
sentence of death.
7.4. On 28.10.2014, after an open-court hearing,
this Court dismissed Review Petition (Crl.) No.
395 of 2014. The Court reiterated the narrow
compass of review under Article 137 of the
Constitution, found no error apparent on the
face of the record, and declined to revisit
findings on voluntariness or evidentiary
appreciation. The submission regarding
ineffective assistance at trial was rejected at the
review stage.
4
Evidence Act
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 11 of 26
7.5. Subsequently, on 28.01.2015, in writ
proceedings challenging the rejection of mercy
petition of the Petitioner, the High Court
commuted the sentence of death in this case to
imprisonment for life. The conviction continued
to stand. Special Leave Petitions, SLP (Crl.) No.
1444 of 2016 and SLP (Crl.) No. 7456 of 2016,
filed against the judgment dated 28.01.2015 of
the High Court, remain pending before this
Court.
8. The other twelve cases
8.1. Between 2010 and 2021, the petitioner was
tried and convicted in twelve additional capital
cases arising from the same circumstances in
the Nithari area at House No. D-5, Sector-31,
Noida. These trials proceeded on the same
evidentiary foundation, namely the confession
recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and
alleged discoveries and recoveries said to have
been made at the petitioner’s instance under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In two of these
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 12 of 26
cases the co-accused, Moninder Singh Pandher,
was also convicted by the Trial Court.
8.2. By a set of judgments dated 16.10.2023, the
High Court allowed the petitioner’s appeals in
all twelve matters and acquitted the Petitioner.
The High Court held that the confession under
Section 164 CrPC could not be treated as
voluntary or reliable. It recorded that the
petitioner had been kept in uninterrupted police
custody for about sixty days before the
confession was recorded, that there was no
meaningful or private access to legal aid, that
the recording Magistrate did not express the
clear satisfaction on voluntariness that Section
164 CrPC requires, and that the Investigating
Officer was brought into the room at the outset
and kept immediately available outside, which
undermined voluntariness. The High Court
noted repeated assertions within the confession
of tutoring and references to torture and
concluded that the bar under Section 24 of the
Evidence Act was attracted.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 13 of 26
8.3. The High Court further held that the alleged
discoveries and recoveries under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act were inadmissible and
unreliable. The prosecution did not prove any
contemporaneous disclosure statement. There
were material contradictions between the
panchnama narrative and the remand papers,
including a reference to a joint disclosure by
both accused that could not stand with the later
version that the petitioner alone led to
discovery. The evidence showed that members
of the public and the police were already aware
of body parts at the recovery site and that
excavation had commenced before the petitioner
arrived. The principal site lay in an open strip
behind D-5 and D-6 and in the drain on the
main road, which was not under the petitioner’s
exclusive domain. These features negated the
essential element of discovery by the accused.
8.4. On the forensic record, the High Court found an
absence of corroboration. Searches of D-5 by
expert teams did not yield human bloodstains
or human remains that would be consistent
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 14 of 26
with multiple homicides and dismemberment
inside the house. There was no incriminating
trace in the kitchen or on utensils. A semen
stain on a quilt did not match with the petitioner
or the identified victims. The DNA work
undertaken by the Centre for DNA
Fingerprinting and Diagnostics linked certain
remains to families of missing persons but did
not connect the petitioner to the actus reus
within D-5. The High Court therefore held that
the circumstantial chain was incomplete.
8.5. The High Court also found that the recoveries of
a knife and an axe did not advance the
prosecution case. Neither implement bore
human blood or tissue. The prosecution did not
establish that the cut marks on bones, if any,
were consistent with those implements or that
these specific implements were used. There was
no independent proof that the petitioner
possessed the skill or capability to carry out the
precise acts alleged with those implements.
Taken with the absence of incriminating traces
within D-5, the supposed weapon link failed.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 15 of 26
The High Court criticised the investigation as
botched and shifting, and recorded that
material avenues, including the organ-trade
angle noted by a committee of the Ministry of
Women and Child Development, were not
probed. In two of the twelve matters the High
Court also acquitted Moninder Singh Pandher.
8.6. The State preferred appeals against the
acquittals. By an order dated 30.07.2025, a
three-Judge Bench of this Court dismissed
those appeals. The acquittals recorded by the
High Court on 16.10.2023 have therefore
attained finality.
9. In view of the foregoing narrative, the petitioner has
shown grounds that lie within the narrow compass of
the curative jurisdiction recognised in Rupa Ashok
). What is asserted is not a plea for
Hurra (Supra
reappraisal of evidence but a fundamental defect that
impeaches the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
The petitioner points to outcomes of this Court that
cannot be reconciled on the same evidentiary
substratum and to defects that bear directly on
voluntariness, admissibility and investigative
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 16 of 26
fairness. Such inconsistency engages the guarantees
of equality and due process under Article 14 and
Article 21 of the Constitution and warrants
consideration ex debito justitiae . The petition carries
the averments and certification required by Order
XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and has
been placed before us in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. We are therefore satisfied that
the threshold for invoking the curative jurisdiction is
met and we proceed to examine the merits.
10. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and
having closely examined the record of the present
case along with the subsequent judgments to which
reference has been made, we are satisfied that the
determinative question is whether two sets of
outcomes of this Court can stand together when they
rest on an identical evidentiary foundation. The first
is the decision of 15.02.2011 affirming the
petitioner’s conviction and death sentence on the
strength of a Section 164 CrPC confession and
supposed discoveries under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. The second is the order dated
30.07.2025 by a three-Judge Bench dismissing the
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 17 of 26
State’s appeals and thereby affirming twelve
acquittals where the very same confession and the
very same class of Section 27 material were rejected
as legally unreliable. The tension is not peripheral. It
goes to the integrity of adjudication. In such a
situation, the curative jurisdiction recognised in
Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra) is rightly invoked. The
object is not to reopen evidence as in a second appeal.
The object is to cure a manifest miscarriage of justice
where inconsistent results persist on the same
foundation and undermine public confidence in the
administration of justice.
11. We accordingly test the present conviction against
the legal defects that led the High Court, and
thereafter this Court, to discard the common
evidentiary pillars in the companion matters. Those
defects were not factual peculiarities confined to
other victims. They were structural infirmities
inherent in the mode of proof relied upon across the
Nithari prosecutions. The petitioner’s Section 164
CrPC statement was recorded after about sixty days
of uninterrupted police custody without meaningful
legal aid. The recording Magistrate did not record the
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 18 of 26
clear, unqualified satisfaction that the statute
demands. The Investigating Officer’s proximity to the
recording process, including his presence at the
outset and his ready access, thereafter, compromised
the environment of voluntariness. The text of the
statement itself repeatedly adverted to tutoring and
to prior coercion. These features attracted the bar
under Section 24 of the Evidence Act and rendered
the confession inadmissible as a matter of law. We
find no principled basis on which the same statement
can be treated as voluntary and reliable in this case
when it has been judicially discredited in all others.
12. The second pillar concerns the alleged discoveries
and recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The High Court found that no contemporaneous
disclosure memo was proved. The narrative in the
later-prepared seizure memorandum conflicted with
the remand papers, which recorded a joint disclosure
by both accused. The evidence also showed that the
police and members of the public already knew that
bones and articles lay in the open strip and that
excavation had begun before the petitioner arrived.
These features negate the essential element of
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 19 of 26
discovery by the accused and reduce the exercise to
a seizure from an already known place. Those
findings were upheld when the State’s appeals were
dismissed on 30.07.2025. The present conviction
rests on the same recovery architecture. Once the
disclosure is not contemporaneously proved, once
prior knowledge is established, and once
contradictions infect the record, Section 27 of the
Evidence Act ceases to operate. The legal conclusion
cannot change from case to case when the premise is
identical.
13. The forensic analysis reinforces that conclusion.
Extensive searches of D-5 by expert teams did not
yield human bloodstains, remains, or transfer
patterns consistent with multiple homicides and
dismemberment inside the house. The DNA work
undertaken by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and
Diagnostics in Hyderabad linked certain remains to
families of missing persons. That science aided only
identification. It did not prove authorship of homicide
by the petitioner within D-5. Knives and an axe were
exhibited without proof of blood, tissue, or hair
consistent with use in the alleged crimes. There was
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 20 of 26
no credible chain of custody or expert testimony
establishing that a domestic help with no medical
training could perform the precise dismemberment
described. These gaps were central to the acquittals
in the twelve cases. They are equally present here.
14. We add that the High Court’s critique of the
investigation was not rhetorical excess. It was
anchored in record-based deficiencies that bear
directly on fairness and reliability. The failure to
secure prompt and independent medical
documentation during the long spell of police
custody, the perfunctory legal-aid arrangement at the
moment of confession, the presence and influence of
the Investigating Officer during the Section 164
procedure, the contradictions in remand and
recovery papers, and the neglect of material avenues
of inquiry, including the organ-trade angle flagged by
a governmental committee, cumulatively undermine
confidence in the prosecution’s case theory. We find
ourselves in agreement with that assessment. The
same infirmities, viewed through the lens of the
present record, cannot yield a different legal
conclusion.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 21 of 26
15. We must emphasize that Article 21 of the
Constitution insists on a fair, just and reasonable
procedure. That insistence is at its acutest where
capital punishment is imposed. Although the
petitioner’s death sentence in this case was
commuted to imprisonment for life on 28.01.2015,
the conviction continues to carry the gravest
consequences. To allow a conviction to stand on
evidentiary basis that this Court has since rejected
as involuntary or inadmissible in the very same fact-
matrix offends Article 21 of the Constitution. It also
violates Article 14 of the Constitution, since like cases
must be treated alike. Arbitrary disparity in outcomes
on an identical record is inimical to equality before
the law. The curative jurisdiction exists to prevent
precisely such anomalies from hardening into
precedent.
16. We are mindful of finality. We are equally mindful
that curative relief is exceptional and proceeds on
narrow grounds. The present case crosses that
exacting threshold. The confession that anchored the
conviction is legally tainted on grounds already
accepted by this Court in the companion matters.
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 22 of 26
The supposed discoveries do not satisfy the statutory
preconditions for admissibility. The forensic and
investigative record does not supply the missing
links. Once those keystones are removed, the
circumstantial chain no longer holds. The conviction
cannot be sustained without departing from
principles that now stand authoritatively applied to
indistinguishable prosecutions arising out of the
same occurrence. For these reasons, we hold that the
petitioner has established a fundamental defect that
impeaches the integrity of the adjudicatory process
and that relief is warranted ex debito justitiae within
the parameters of Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra).
17. The offences in Nithari were heinous, and the
suffering of the families is beyond measure. It is a
matter of deep regret that despite prolonged
investigation, the identity of the actual perpetrator
has not been established in a manner that meets the
legal standards. Criminal law does not permit
conviction on conjecture or on a hunch. Suspicion,
however grave, cannot replace proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Courts cannot prefer expediency
over legality. The presumption of innocence endures
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 23 of 26
until guilt is proved through admissible and reliable
evidence, and when the proof fails the only lawful
outcome is to set aside the conviction even in a case
involving horrific crimes.
18. At this juncture, we must remark on our abiding faith
in the capacity of police and investigative agencies of
our country. When investigations are timely,
professional and constitutionally compliant, even the
most difficult mysteries can be solved and many
crimes can be prevented by early intervention. It is,
therefore, genuinely unfortunate that in the present
matter negligence and delay corroded the fact-finding
process and foreclosed avenues that might have
identified the true offender. The scene was not
secured before excavation began, the alleged
disclosure was not contemporaneously recorded, the
remand papers carried contradictory versions, and
the petitioner was kept in prolonged police custody
without a timely, court-directed medical
examination. Crucial scientific opportunities were
lost when post-mortem material and other forensic
outputs were not promptly and properly brought on
record and when searches of D-5 yielded no
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 24 of 26
incriminating traces that could be forensically
anchored to the alleged events. The investigation did
not adequately examine obvious witnesses from the
household and neighbourhood and did not pursue
material leads, including the organ-trade angle
flagged by a governmental committee. Each lapse
weakened the provenance and reliability of the
evidence and narrowed the path to the truth.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the curative petition
is allowed.
20. The judgment dated 15.02.2011 in Criminal Appeal
No. 2227 of 2010 and the order dated 28.10.2014 in
Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014 are recalled and
set aside.
21. Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 is allowed. The
judgment dated 13.02.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 611
of 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad, and the judgment dated 11.09.2009
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Criminal Confirmation/Appeal No. 1475 of 2009
are set aside.
22. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges under
Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the IPC. All
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 25 of 26
sentences and fines imposed thereunder stand
quashed.
23. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case or proceeding. The
Registry shall communicate this judgment forthwith
to the Superintendent of the jail concerned and to the
Trial Court for immediate compliance.
24. In view of this acquittal, SLP (Crl.) No. 1444 of 2016
and SLP (Crl.) No. 7456 of 2016 arising from the
judgment dated 28.01.2015 stand disposed of as
infructuous.
25. All pending applications stand disposed of.
……………………………………..CJI.
[BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI]
………………………………………..J.
[SURYA KANT]
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 11, 2025
CURATIVE PET…D.NO.49297/2025 Page 26 of 26