The Allahabad High Court has acquitted three men convicted in a 1989 dowry death case, ruling that a scientific viscera report cannot be used to secure a conviction if it was never formally presented to the accused for explanation during their trial.
A two-judge bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Jai Krishna Upadhyay allowed the appeal filed by a man, his father, and his brother. The three had been convicted of poisoning the man’s wife to death in 1986 following demands for dowry.
The prosecution’s case rested heavily on a forensic viscera report, which detected traces of zinc phosphide—a highly toxic rodenticide—in the deceased woman’s stomach, intestine, kidneys, and spleen. However, the High Court noted that during the trial, the court failed to confront the accused with this specific report when their statements were being recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Failure To Confront Accused
The bench explained that simply asking the accused general questions about administering poison was inadequate when the foundational scientific evidence, the viscera report, was kept from them. It emphasized that any crucial evidence intended to form the basis of a conviction must be put to the accused to give them an opportunity to explain it.
In reaching its decision, the High Court cited Supreme Court rulings in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam (2008), Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013), and Chandan Pasi & Others v. The State of Bihar (2025). These precedents establish that if an essential piece of evidence is not presented to the accused during their examination, it must be completely excluded from judicial consideration.
Chain Of Custody Lapses
Beyond the failure to present the report to the accused, the High Court highlighted critical procedural gaps in the prosecution’s handling of the physical evidence.
The court observed that there was no register entry to prove the preservation of the viscera sample. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce any witness to testify how the sealed viscera travelled from the doctor who performed the autopsy to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO). The prosecution also failed to examine any forensic expert to confirm that the sample was received in an intact, untampered state.
Because the flawed viscera report served as the sole evidence linking the accused to the alleged poisoning, the bench declared it inadmissible. Consequently, the High Court set aside the 1989 conviction and cleared all three appellants of all charges.
