Prayagraj: Setting aside a 1989 conviction, the Allahabad high court has ruled that a viscera report cannot be relied upon to secure a conviction if it was not specifically put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.In its judgment dated June 3, the court allowed an appeal filed by a man, his father and brother challenging their 1989 conviction in connection with the alleged dowry death of a woman, who was allegedly poisoned in 1986.A division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay held that merely questioning an accused about the alleged administration of poison to the deceased is insufficient if the prosecution withholds the primary scientific evidence — the viscera report — from them during their examination.In the case, the prosecution had relied on a viscera report that detected the pesticide zinc phosphide, a highly toxic rodenticide, in the deceased’s stomach, intestine, kidneys and spleen.However, during the trial, when the accused were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, the trial court failed to confront them with the contents of the viscera report.Taking note of this omission, the HC held that the report could not be relied upon.“We find that neither the viscera nor the report with regard to it had ever been placed before the accused persons when their statements were being recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. Even though questions were put related to poison being administered, no question was put in connection with the viscera and its report… the viscera report should therefore not be taken into account at all,” the bench observed.The bench relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Asraf Ali vs State of Assam (2008), Sujit Biswas vs State of Assam (2013), and Chandan Pasi & Ors. vs State of Bihar (2025), which held that if the prosecution intends to rely on an important piece of evidence against an accused, the accused must be specifically questioned about it and given an opportunity to explain it.The SC has also held that if such an essential piece of evidence is not put to the accused, it must be excluded from consideration and cannot form the basis of a conviction.Apart from this procedural lapse, the HC found several deficiencies in the prosecution’s handling of the viscera sample.The bench noted that there was no register entry proving the preservation of the viscera, no witness was produced to explain how the sealed sample was transported from the doctor who conducted the post-mortem to the chief medical officer (CMO), and no forensic expert testified that it had been received in an untampered sealed condition.The court also questioned the prosecution’s theory that the poison had been forcibly administered. It observed that zinc phosphide has a bitter taste and a strong odour, making it unlikely that it could have been administered “on the sly” to a healthy adult without resistance. The HC noted that neither the deceased nor the accused had any injuries suggesting a struggle.Holding that the viscera report was the prosecution’s only conclusive scientific evidence linking the accused to the alleged murder, the court observed that once the report was excluded from consideration, the conviction could not be sustained.Accordingly, the HC allowed the appeal and acquitted the man, his father and his brother of all charges.
