logo
Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli

Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli

Hindustan Times3 days ago
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as many as 14 appeals against the acquittal of accused Surendra Koli in the sensational 2006 Nithari serial killings case. Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran said that there was "no perversity" in the findings of the Allahabad High Court acquitting Koli.
Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the CJI said the recovery of skulls and other belongings of the victims from an open drain was not made following the statement of Koli before the police.
The bench said any recovery made without recording the statement of the accused by the police is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence law.
It said only those recoveries, which are made from a place accessible to the accused only, can be admitted as evidence in a case primarily hinging on circumstantial evidence.
The top court last year agreed to examine separate pleas, including those filed by the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision acquitting Koli on October 16, 2023.
One of the pleas was filed by the father of one of the victims challenging the high court's verdict.
Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Koli were accused of rape and murder of people, mostly children from their neighbourhood in Nithari in Uttar Pradesh.
Koli was awarded the death penalty on September 28, 2010 by the trial court.
The high court acquitted Pandher and Koli in the death penalty case, holding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" and called it a "botched up" investigation.
Reversing the death sentence given to Koli in 12 cases and Pandher in two cases, the high court said the probe was "nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies".
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rights of persons with disabilities: SC judge highlights need to create sensitisation & awareness
Rights of persons with disabilities: SC judge highlights need to create sensitisation & awareness

Hindustan Times

time29 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Rights of persons with disabilities: SC judge highlights need to create sensitisation & awareness

New Delhi, Supreme Court judge Justice Manmohan on Saturday highlighted the need to create sensitisation and awareness about the rights of persons with disabilities. Rights of persons with disabilities: SC judge highlights need to create sensitisation & awareness Justice Manmohan said the courts have and will deliver verdicts on issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, but the other organs of the State also have to rise to the occasion. He was speaking at a conference held here on 'Judging and lawyering at the margins disability rights and beyond'. The conference was organised by Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation in collaboration with Qable. "The need of the hour is to create sensitisation, to create awareness. And I think the more awareness is there about the Act, about the rights that are available, the more the society will understand, the more the courts will understand and it will ensure more compliance," said Justice Manmohan when asked about the issue concerning implementation of the judgements. He also spoke on the issue regarding continuous monitoring by the court for compliance of its verdicts. "First of all, the court dockets are absolutely full and really to say that court will pick up this issue and give it absolute priority is not feasible because every day the court is grappling with so many issues," he said. Justice Manmohan said keeping in view the constraints, it has to be ensured that other organs of the State also rise to the occasion. The judge said the legislature will have to be aware of the issue and will have to put in place some mechanism whereby the court orders are given effect to. "Everything cannot be done at the pain of contempt. And if we start using the power of contempt repeatedly, it also loses its utility at some point of time," he added. Justice Manmohan said it has to be ensured the executive machinery understands that this is an obligation on them and this is "not some charity being done". "I think the basic problem that is arising is because everyone is believing that this is some sort of a charity which is being done. You think of any concept, whether it's gender justice, whether it is persons with disability, the mindset of the executive as well, to a large extent, the people who have been adjudicating these matters in the past have been that we will deal with it as if one is doing a bit of a charity," he said. Justice Manmohan further said things will change once people will realise it is a rights-based approach and not charity. "But yes, I agree with you. As a short-term measure, the court will have to monitor and will have to ensure that its judgments are implemented," he said. Justice Manmohan also cautioned if people think the court is going to monitor a matter on a daily basis, it may be raising the hopes too high. "We have to be realistic and we have to ensure that all organs of the State work towards it. Today, everything can't be left at the judiciary's doorstep. If you think that only judiciary is going to resolve the problem of this country, you are sadly mistaken," he said. Justice Manmohan said until and unless all organs, including the society, works for it, there will be issue at hand. "Just see, you need empathy in the society which is lacking," the judge said. "So, the real issue is to sensitise the society to ensure all organs of the society work together and one should not expect that it will be solved only by the judiciary," he added. Justice Manmohan said the judiciary may take the lead in the matter, but it will only get implemented at the ground level when everyone works together. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Vishaka still matters: The Bombay HC judgement
Vishaka still matters: The Bombay HC judgement

Hindustan Times

time29 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Vishaka still matters: The Bombay HC judgement

On July 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court delivered its judgment in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) vs. Bar Council of India. The petitioners had sought directions for the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to consider forming the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). While dealing with the issue, the Court held that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH) do not apply to the advocates. The Court had reasoned that there exists no employer-employee relationship between the Bar Councils and the advocates, whereas, actions if any intended can be dealt by disciplinary committee of Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. Law (Pexel) The High Court's ruling has created uncertainty. The legal profession today faces critical questions. If not the PoSH Act, then what? How can the legal field be made a safe space for women advocates? And when grievances inevitably arise, where do they find recourse? The answer of the issue posed in UNS Women Legal Association was not all that easy to arrive at. The High Court has applied a narrow interpretation of the PoSH Act. To understand its far reaching impact, it is imperative to understand the history of PoSH Act. Unlike most laws, the law relating to prevention of sexual harassment did not originate in Parliament. It was born out of judicial intervention, following the brutal gang rape of a social worker in a village in Rajasthan, which shook the collective conscience of the nation. It led to the filing of a writ petition in the Supreme Court as a class action seeking enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. For the first time, the Supreme Court was confronted with the critical task of addressing the pervasive issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. In its judgement in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court declared its intention i.e., to protect all working women regardless of their workplace. Essentially, the Vishaka guidelines were never confined to traditional employer-employee relationships. The Supreme Court took an expansive view of the term 'working women,' extending protection to all women engaged in any form of work, irrespective of the nature or structure of their workplace. The guidelines carried a sunset clause. They were meant to lapse once appropriate legislation was enacted. However, the guidelines were meant to be continued till the Vishaka guidelines replaced with suitable legislation. Nearly 15 years later, in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court again emphasised that the implementation of Vishaka should be true to its substance. The Court observed with concern that women lawyers still lacked a proper grievance redressal mechanism. It directed the Bar Council of India to ensure that all persons registered with State Bar Councils followed the Vishaka guidelines. Further, in Binu Tamta v. Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court further advanced this jurisprudence by formulating the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013, with the aim of making the Supreme Court premises a safer place for women advocates. In this backdrop, the Bombay High Court's recent judgment is concerning. While it acknowledges both Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele, it falters to reckon with the directions contained in those judgements. The High Court's reasoning is premised on the belief that the enactment of the PoSH Act rendered Vishaka obsolete due to its sunset clause. However, the Vishaka guidelines still continues to hold good for all working women, who are otherwise not protected by the PoSH Act. The sunset clause did not extinguish Vishaka; it still shines; it merely defers to a legislative framework that meets or exceeds its standards. Where such a framework is found wanting or inapplicable, Vishaka continues. Compounding this, it has been suggested in the judgement that women advocates can pursue disciplinary remedies under the Advocates Act, 1961. A similar issue was dealt with in Medha Kotwal Lele. It led the Supreme Court to direct the government to amend service rules and incorporate the Vishaka guidelines since service rules were observed to be incapable of dealing with complaints of sexual harassment. In sum, the judgment raises serious and far-reaching concerns for all working women, beyond the legal profession. It affects all working women who may not be working in the realm of traditional employer-employee model. Consider gig workers for example. India has 7.7 million of them, yet legal recourse in instances of sexual harassment remains unclear. Companies call them 'partners' instead of employees to avoid social security benefits, which also ends up taking away their rights under the PoSH Act. As work patterns continue to evolve, it must follow with an expansive interpretation of the PoSH Act in line with the Vishaka guidelines. Without which, it risks becoming irrelevant to the majority of women entering the modern workforce. Therefore, even though as per the High Court's Judgement, women advocates do not have recourse to PoSH Act, any working women who is not covered under PoSH can still resort to the Vishaka guidelines and the employer or other responsible person is duty bound to abide by the constitutional mandate of providing a safe workplace. This article is authored by Anindita Pujari, senior advocate and Shaileshwar Yadav, advocate, Supreme Court.

Fraudsters pose as govt officials to dupe A-I crash victim's kin, FIR filed
Fraudsters pose as govt officials to dupe A-I crash victim's kin, FIR filed

Business Standard

timean hour ago

  • Business Standard

Fraudsters pose as govt officials to dupe A-I crash victim's kin, FIR filed

The family of Vardi Chand Menaria, a victim of the Air India flight AI171 crash, has filed a complaint against two individuals, who allegedly tried to deceive them by pretending to be government officials and a Supreme Court lawyer to help the family get compensation, The Indian Express reported. The flight, bound for London, had crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad airport on June 12, killing 260 people. According to the FIR, the accused claimed they could help the family get compensation worth ₹8 crore-₹10 crore if they agreed to sign some documents. The police have registered a case under Section 329(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for 'criminal trespass'. This offence carries a punishment of up to three months in jail or a fine of ₹5,000. Vardi Chand Menaria's son, Deepak, said in his complaint that on the evening of July 17, he received a call from a man named Bhupendra. The caller introduced himself as a representative from the central government and said a 'secret verification' would be conducted at their home by a team from Delhi and Mumbai. He asked Deepak to arrange a copy of his late father's passport and ticket, the news report said. Duo visits house, pressures family to sign The next day, on July 18 at around 7:45 pm, a man and a woman arrived at the Menaria home in Rundeda village in a car bearing a Gujarat registration number. They entered the house and spoke with Deepak's mother, making confusing claims and eventually introducing themselves as representatives from the Supreme Court. 'When I returned home, they pressured us to sign and put thumb impressions on some documents related to a supposed case against Boeing in America,' Deepak said. He refused to sign without understanding the purpose. Eventually, the two left the house at around 8:40 pm, the news report said. FIR filed after legal authority's intervention On July 19, the same individuals returned and parked their car a kilometre away from the family's house. Sensing danger, Deepak called his neighbours and the Vallabh Nagar police station. The police arrived and took the two to the station. However, Deepak claimed that the station house officer refused to register the FIR and asked him to collect it from the superintendent of police's office as he had lodged a complaint there. It was only after Deepak approached the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) that the FIR was officially filed on July 29, the news report said. The crash, one of the worst air disasters in India in decades, involved a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that crashed into a medical hostel complex in Ahmedabad's Meghani Nagar area shortly after takeoff on June 12. Of the 242 people onboard, 241 were killed, with only one survivor. The total death toll stood at 270, including casualties on the ground.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store