Curative Petition – Nithari Case – Two sets of outcomes resting on an identical evidentiary foundation – Impermissibility – Exercise of curative jurisdiction – In Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 decided on 15.02.2011, Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and sentence of death in the Rimpa Haldar case on the strength of a s.164, CrPC confession and supposed discoveries u/s.27, Evidence Act – Review petition against this order was dismissed – However, in twelve companion prosecutions founded on the same confession and recoveries, the High Court acquitted the petitioner on 16.10.2023, and vide order dtd. 30.07.2025, Supreme Court dismissed the State appeals and affirmed those acquittals rejecting the very same confession and the very same class of s.27 material as legally unreliable – Present petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that irreconcilable outcomes have arisen on an identical evidentiary framework and that a manifest miscarriage of justice remains despite the dismissal of review:
Held: The present case meets the exacting threshold for the exercise of the curative jurisdiction – 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 case – The confession that anchored the conviction is legally tainted on grounds already accepted by this Court in the companion matters – 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 – Art.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 by the High Court in writ proceedings challenging the rejection of his mercy petition, 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 Art.21 – It also violates Art.14 since like cases must be treated alike – Arbitrary disparity in outcomes on an identical record is inimical to equality before the law – Curative petition allowed – Judgment dtd. 15.02.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 and the order in Review Petition are recalled and set aside – Petitioner acquitted – Constitution of India – Arts.21, 14. [Paras 9, 15, 16, 19-22]
Curative Petition – Curative jurisdiction – Threshold for exercise of, stated. [Paras 2-4]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.