'IOs Must Get Viscera Reports Within Time': Allahabad High Court Directs State Secy, DGP To Ensure Timely Communication From FSLs

A bench of Justice Samit Gopal directed the Chief Secretary, Director General of Medical Health and Director General of Police to look into the situation and ensure that viscera reports are communicated expeditiously without any wastage of time to enable complete, proper and effective assessment during investigation.

The Court's observations came while hearing the bail plea of a dowry death accused. The single judge noted that though the viscera of the deceased was sent to the Lab in February 2024, was prepared in September 2024, but the same was not received by the IO until February 1, 2025.

In fact, the report was annexed in the case diary only thereafter. The charge sheet, meanwhile, had already been filed on September 13, 2024 and cognizance was taken on November 11, 2024, even before the viscera report was received.

"This fact is disturbing", Justice Gopal noted as he added that "there has to be a procedure and process of expeditiously transmitting the viscera report by the Forensic Science Laboratories to the Investigating Agency for its consideration".

The Court noted that the investigation in the case had been concluded without receiving the viscera report and charge-sheet was submitted.

This, the Court said, demonstrated that so far as the cause of death of the deceased was concerned, it was not conclusive. It added that the delay showed that the investigation was on some count in some manner incomplete.

Calling the viscera report one of the links in the chain of circumstances of a matter of such nature, the Court emphasized that such crucial evidence should be in the hands of the Investigating Agency within time to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Taking a systemic view of the issue, Justice Gopal issued directions to the Chief Secretary, DGP and DG Medical Health to ensure viscera reports are transmitted without any wastage of time to avoid incomplete investigations.

The Court also directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned officers within a week for necessary action.

Briefly put, 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 ₹1 lakh.

It further claimed that 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 him bail by observing thus:

"…it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. 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".