NARENDRA G. GOEL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 1004 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 1004 
NARENDRA G. GOEL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1058 of 2009) 
MAY 08, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.166A, 173(8) -
C Further investigation - Mitochondria/ DNA analysis -
Canadian citizen murdered in Bombay - Her dead body taken 
to Canada and genetic material were with the Canadian 
Corner - Writ petition by husband praying for forensic 
investigation of the articles relating to murder, in Canada as 
' -
o such facility was not available in India - High Court allowed 
~ 
' 
writ petition - On appeal by accused persons, held: No 
interference called for - The accused have no right to be 
heard at the stage of investigation - However they would get 
full opportunity to cross-examine or controvert the 
E admissibility or authenticity of material gathered in the course 
of further investigation. 
A writ petition was filed before the High Court by the 
~ 
husband of the deceased praying for forensic 
investigation in Canada, of the articles relating to the 
F murder of his wife as there was no such facility available 
in India. High Court directed to get the material collected 
in the course of investigation, examined in Canada. These 
appeals are filed by the accused persons against the 
G 
H 
order of High Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is well settled that the accused has no 
right to be heard at the stage of investigation. The 
1004 
NARENDRA G GOEL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1005 
&ANR. 
prosecution will however has to prove its case at the trial 
A 
when the accused would have full opportunity to rebut/ 
question the validity and authenticity of the prosecution 
case. The accused can certainly avail himself of an 
1:>pportunity to cross examine and/or otherwise controvert 
the authenticity, admissibility or legal significance of B 
material evidence gathered in the course of further 
investigations. Further in the light of the views expressed 
by the investigating officer in his affidavit before the High 
Court, it is apparent that the investigating authorities 
would inevitably have conducted further investigation c 
with the aid of CFS under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. [Para 10] 
[1009-E-F; 1010-A-B] 
Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata 
Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P. (1999) 5 SCC 740, 
D 
relied on. 
2. What is the evidentiary value can be tested during 
trial. At this juncture it would not be proper to interfere in 
the matter. The lady who was murdered in Bombay was 
a Canadian citizen of the Indian origin. It was stated on 
E 
behalf of the State that there was a confession by 
accused persons on the basis of which recoveries were 
made. ihe blood stained clothes of the accused (A1) and 
the deceased were seized. Since the Canadian citizen 
was murdered, the Canadian police was involved. Dead 
body was taken to Canada and the genetic material were 
with the Canadian Coroner. Before the application by 
respondent No. 2 was filed there was a letter by the 
Coroner to the Police Commissioner. [Paras 11 and 12] 
[1010-B-E] 
Case Law Reference: 
(1999) s sec 140 
relied on 
Para 10 
F 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1058 of 2009. 
H 
1006 
SUPREME COLJRT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.09.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 
t 
1930 of 2006. 
WITH 
B SLP (Crl.) No. 3206 of 2p07. 
L.N. Rao, Sidharth Luthra, K.T.S. Tulsi Altaf Ahmad, S. 
Singh, Gaurav Kejriwal, Ashok M. Saroagi Sangeeta Kumar, 
)r " 
Vijay Kumar and Ashwani Garg for the Appellant. 
c 
Ashok Desai, U.U. Lalit, Meenakshi Arora, Suvrajyoti 
Gupta, Mohit D. Ram, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sandhya 
Goswami and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents. 
--
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA,·, J. 1. Leave granted in both the 
Special Leave Petitions. 
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a 
E Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The appeal r@l~tipg 
to Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1880 of 2007 has been filed 
by Narender Goel who was not a party before the High Court 
while the Criminal Appeal relating to SLP(Crl.) No. 3206 of 
2007 has been filed by Pawankumar Satyanarayan Goenka 
F 
who was also not a party before the High Court. Dr. 
Sadankumar Goel, the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 
1930 of 2006 is the husband of Dr. Asha Goel (hereinafter 
referred t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.