2009 (5) TMI 960 - SC - Indian Laws

Violation of parameters set u/s 166A CrPC - Murdered of Canadian citizen of the Indian origin - Want of Proper medical and forensic investigation - neither the application has been made by the prosecution nor any letter of request had been issued by competent court of law - approach the Government of Canada for seeking assistance from appropriate agencies of the said Government to investigate the offences in so far as they relate to DNA testing of the articles recovered from the accused - as there is no such facility available in India. HELD THAT - It is well settled that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation . The prosecution will however have to prove its case at the trial when the accused will have full opportunity to rebut/question the validity and authenticity of the prosecution case. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P. 1999 (7) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT this Court observed, There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. The accused can certainly avail himself of an opportunity to cross examine and/or otherwise controvert the authenticity, admissibility or legal significance of material evidence gathered in course of further investigations. Further in 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 with the aid of CFS u/s 173(8) of the Code. We are of the view that what is the evidentiary value can be tested during trial. At this juncture it would not be proper to interfere in the matter. It appears from the statement of learned counsel for the State that the lady who was murdered in Bombay was a Canadian citizen of the Indian origin. It is stated that there was a confession by accused persons on the basis of which recoveries were made. The blood stained clothes of the accused (A1) and the deceased were seized. It is pointed out, that the Canadian citizen was murdered and therefore the Candian 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. Whether there is actually illegal recovery, since documents are there they are to be proved. In that view of the matter we are not inclined to interfere and it is for the court to decide whether the evidence is admissible or otherwise. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly JJ., relates to a criminal case involving the murder of Dr. Asha Goel. Dr. Sadankumar Goel, the husband of the deceased, filed a petition seeking forensic investigation assistance from the Chief Coroner of Ontario, Canada, due to lack of facilities in India. The High Court directed the investigating agency to send the evidence to Canada for examination, which was accepted by the prosecution. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the High Court exceeded its authority under Section 166A of the Criminal Procedure Code. They claimed that no formal application or letter of request was made by the prosecution, and the accused were excluded from the proceedings. However, the Court held that the accused have no right to be heard during the investigation stage and that the prosecution must prove its case at trial. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the evidentiary value would be determined during trial, and the admissibility of the evidence would be decided by the court. The involvement of the Canadian police and the genetic material being held by the Canadian Coroner were also noted, with the Court declining to interfere in the matter.