Source: Hindustan Times

Introduction

The acquittal given by Allahabad High Court in the heinous Nithari killings due to investigative and procedural failures has resulted in criticism of investigation agencies by the court. The court also commented that the investigative agency has avoided the role of organ trading syndicate in the entire case.

What is the Background of Nithari Killings?

• The Nithari killings refer to a series of gruesome murders that took place in Nithari, a village near Noida, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India.
• The incidents came to light in December 2006, when the police discovered human remains near the house of Moninder Singh Pandher, a businessman, and his domestic help, Surender Koli.
• The investigation revealed that Koli had lured and murdered several children and young women, and both Koli and Pandher were involved in the heinous crimes.
• The victims were often poor children who went missing, and their remains were found in and around the house.
• The case shocked the nation due to the brutality of the crimes and the apparent negligence on the part of law enforcement.
• The trial resulted in the conviction of both the accused.
• They were found guilty of murder, rape, and other charges related to the killings.
• However, in 2023 Allahabad HC acquitted both of the appellants of Nithari killings as the guilt was not proven without reasonable doubt.
• The appellants argued in this case that an improper method had been used to obtain the confessions.

What were the Opinions of the High Court?

• The failure of investigation to probe the possible involvement of organ trade, despite specific recommendations made by the High-Level Committee, constituted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, in Nithari killings is nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies.
• The court said that the basic norms of collecting evidence have been brazenly violated during investigation.
• It appears to the court that the investigation opted for the easy course of implicating a poor servant of the house by demonizing him, without taking due care to probing more serious aspects of possible involvement of organized activity of organ trading.
• Inferences of many kinds, including collusion, etc. are probable on account of such serious lapses occasioned during investigation.

What were the Opinions of the Court on Organ Trading?

• The court observed that the investigation agency has not focused on the aspect of organ trading as a motive behind these killings.
• The facts also suggest that the neighbor of one of the accused was a suspect in a case of organ trading (kidney transplant).
• The report of a High Leval Committee of the Ministry of Women and Child Development also said that the police have not investigated the possibility of organ trade.
• The medical superintendent who performed postmortem informed the Committee that “it was intriguing to observe that the middle part of all bodies (torsos) was missing”.
  • According to him, such missing torsos give rise to a suspicion that wrongful use of bodies for organ sale, etc. could be possible.
  • According to him, the surgical precision with which the bodies were cut also pointed to this fact.

What is Indian Law on Organ Trading?

• Organ trafficking or trading refers to the illegal trade of organs for transplantation.
• It is a serious crime and a violation of human rights.
• To combat organ trafficking, many countries, including India, have implemented strict laws and regulations to govern organ transplantation.
• India passed the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (THOA) and later amended it in 2011 to regulate organ donation and transplantation in the country.
• The law prohibits commercial dealings in organs, and organ transplantation is allowed only through legally authorized channels.

What is the Position of Third-Degree Torture in Indian Law?

• The Constitution of India, 1950 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and the Supreme Court has held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity.
• The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Indian Parliament to provide for punishment for torture committed by public servants.
  • The bill aimed to align with the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which India signed in 1997 but had not ratified.
• Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also states that - A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

What are the Major Cases on Third-Degree Torture?

• Mst. Bhagan v. State of Pepsu (1955):
  • The court in this case held that “It appears to be well known that the police are in the habit of extorting confessions by illegal and improper means”.
  • Confessions obtained in this manner must be excluded from evidence as it is not safe to receive a statement made by an accused person under any influence of fear or favor.
• Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011):
  • The SC in this case held that “Confession is a very weak kind of evidence. As is well known, the widespread and rampant practice in the police in India is to use third-degree methods for extracting confessions from the alleged accused”.

Conclusion

The acquittal of Moninder Singh Pandher and Surender Koli in the Nithari killings by the Allahabad HC has brought attention to serious flaws in the investigation and procedural lapses. The case concludes that the focus should not only be on securing convictions but also on ensuring a fair and just legal process that respects human rights. The Nithari case serves as a reminder of the complexities and challenges within the criminal justice system and underscores the imperative for continuous reforms to uphold the principles of justice, transparency, and protection of individual liberties.