5 Big Points From Court Judgment In Nithari Killings Case

We express our disappointment at the manner in which Nithari killings, particularly the disappearance of victim A, has been investigated. The prosecution case is based upon the confession of accused SK (Surendra Koli), made to UP Police on 29.12.2006. Procedure required to be followed for recording the accused's disclosure leading to recovery of biological remains i.e. skulls, bones and skeleton, etc has been given a complete go by. The casual and perfunctory manner in which important aspects of arrest, recovery and confession have been dealt with are most disheartening, to say the least.

It is also urged that in the confession made by accused SK, there is no reference to victim A and, therefore, the confession cannot be relied upon against the accused in the present case. It is also argued that confession is neither voluntary, nor is true and is otherwise recorded in complete disregard of the procedural safeguards stipulated under Section 164 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) and therefore, the confession is bad in law.

The report's conclusion does create a doubt on the prosecution story about the motive for the offence and the failure on part of the investigating agencies to explore the possibility of organ trade as being the motive for the offence is a serious lapse on part of the prosecuting agency, particularly when such large number of women and children had gone missing.

The stand of the prosecution regarding crime in question kept changing from time to time. Initial prosecution case was against accused SK and the owner of House No. D-5 Moninder Singh Pandher and even recoveries made were attributed jointly to them. Successive remand applications filed by the prosecution clearly reflects it. However, with passage of time, the guilt was fastened exclusively upon accused SK. Prosecution evidence has kept changing with the stage of investigation and ultimately all explanations are furnished in form of confession of accused SK, by throwing all possible safeguards to the winds.

The investigation otherwise is botched up and basic norms of collecting evidence have been brazenly violated. It appears to us that the investigation opted for the easy course of implicating a poor servant of the house by demonising him, without taking due care of probing more serious aspects of possible involvement of organised activity of organ trading. Inferences of many kinds, including collusion etc are probable on account of such serious lapses occasioned during investigation. However, we do not intend to express any definite opinion on these aspects and leave such issues to be examined at the appropriate level.