PU prof held for wife’s murder: 4-yr delay in case could pose serious challenges
Police officials argue that the complexity of the case, absence of direct evidence, and reliance on forensic corroboration necessitated caution
Legal experts flag delay in investigation, cops say complexity of case necessitated caution
Even as the Chandigarh Police now express confidence in securing a conviction in the murder of Seema Goyal, wife of a Panjab University professor, legal experts caution that the four-year delay in accused arrest—despite the core evidence remaining unchanged—could pose serious challenges during trial.
From the outset, investigators were confronted with a crime scene that showed no signs of forced entry, a locked house, and forensic indicators suggesting an insider’s role. The mesh panel of kitchen door was found cut from the inside, CCTV footage did not capture any outsider movement, and the post-mortem confirmed death by asphyxia following a struggle. These facts were known to the police within days of the murder in November 2021.
However, despite repeated suspicion of an “inside job”, the probe moved slowly, oscillating between forensic examinations, court permissions, and psychological assessments. Polygraph tests of both the husband and the daughter were conducted early, but the investigation stalled when a narco analysis of the husband was deferred on medical grounds. It was only years later that police turned to advanced neuro-forensic tools such as Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling.
Legal experts point out that while BEOS is admissible as corroborative evidence, courts place greater weight on contemporaneous physical evidence and recoveries. “When the same circumstantial evidence is reinterpreted years later, the defence is likely to argue that the investigation is an afterthought, shaped by hindsight rather than fresh discovery,” said a senior criminal lawyer.
“Brain mapping is not a standalone or conclusive piece of evidence and cannot, by itself, be used to secure a conviction. The prosecution will have to satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay in investigation and arrest, especially when the material circumstances were known early on. At the same time, the accused will be required to explain the circumstances in which the incident occurred, given that only he and the victim were present inside the house at the relevant time,” Terminder Singh said.
The delay has also complicated recoveries. The alleged weapon, the cutter believed to have been used to slice the mesh, and the victim’s mobile phone—missing since the day of the murder—remain untraceable. Witness memories have faded, neighbours’ accounts risk inconsistencies, and the defence may question why decisive custodial interrogation was not pursued when the case was still warm.
However, a defence lawyer pointed out that the delay in the case could be attributed to the absence of direct evidence at the initial stage, adding that the prosecution appears to be relying on a circumstantial chain that it claims has now been established.
Police officials, however, argue that the complexity of the case, absence of direct evidence, and reliance on forensic corroboration necessitated caution.
As per UT police, the accused—professor Bharat Bhushan Goyal—was the only person present inside the house at the time of the crime, a fact that, investigators say, assumes significance in light of the forensic findings. As per the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report, the iron mesh of the kitchen door was cut from inside, ruling out an external intrusion and strengthening suspicion of an insider’s role.
Chandigarh Police express confidence in convicting Bharat Bhushan Goyal for the murder of his wife, Seema Goyal, despite a four-year investigation delay that raises legal concerns. Key evidence points to an insider's role, yet the absence of direct evidence and reliance on delayed forensic tools complicate the case. Legal experts warn the defense may exploit the investigation's prolonged timeline.