Allahabad HC directs expeditious transmission of viscera reports from FSL to probe agencies

Prayagraj, Nov 12 (PTI) Taking serious note of the delay in transmitting viscera reports from forensic science laboratories to investigating agencies, the Allahabad Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary, DGP, and DG (Health) to ensure their expeditious transmission for effective assessment during probe.

The viscera examination is conducted to determine the cause of death or to detect the presence of poison or drugs in the body.

Hearing the bail plea of a dowry death accused, Justice Samit Gopal issued the above directive for expeditious transmission of viscera reports.

In the order dated November 7, the court noted that although the viscera of the deceased was sent to the forensic lab in February 2024, and the report was prepared in September 2024, the same was not received by the investigation officer until February 1, 2025.

The report was annexed in the case diary only thereafter. The chargesheet had already been filed on September 13, 2024, and cognisance was taken on November 11, 2024, even before the viscera report was received, Justice Gopal said.

“This fact is disturbing. There has to be a procedure and process for expeditiously transmitting the viscera report by the forensic science laboratories (FSL) to the investigating agency for its consideration,” the court said.

It noted that the investigation in the case had been concluded without receiving the viscera report, which demonstrated that as far as the cause of death was concerned, it was not conclusive.

The delay showed that the investigation was incomplete on some count, the court said.

While calling the viscera report one of the links in the chain of circumstances of a matter of such nature, the court emphasised that such crucial evidence should be in the hands of the investigating agency within time to reach a reasonable conclusion.

The court also directed the registrar (compliance) to communicate the order to the concerned officers within a week for necessary action.

The FIR in the present case was lodged by the deceased's brother, alleging that his sister was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws over dowry demands of a motorcycle and Rs 1 lakh.

It claimed the deceased suffered injuries on her face, neck and other body parts and died under suspicious circumstances.

The state opposed the bail plea. Agreeing with the state's position, the court denied bail to the applicant, Ramratan, by observing, “It is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There are allegations of dowry demand, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house.

“The co-accused who have been granted bail are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, and since the applicant is the husband of the deceased, his case is distinguishable with that of the said co-accused.” PTI COR RAJ ARI