A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay clarified that merely questioning an accused with regard to poison being administered to the deceased would be insufficient if the primary scientific evidence (the viscera report) is withheld from them.

The Court thus allowed an appeal filed by a husband, his father, and his brother, challenging their 1989 conviction in connection with the alleged poisoning of a woman to death over dowry demands in 1986.

In this case, the prosecution relied upon the viscera report, which indicated the presence of the pesticide "zinc phosphide" (highly toxic rodenticides) in the deceased's stomach, portion of intestine, kidneys, and spleen.

However, during the trial, when the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the trial Court failed to confront them with this specific report.

Taking note of the same and holding that the viscera report cannot be taken into account, the High Court held:

"What is more, we find that neither the viscera nor the report with regard to it had been ever placed before the accused persons when their statements were being recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Even though questions were put with regard to poison being administered, no question was put with regard to the viscera and its report. Definitely, as per all the judgments which have been cited by the learned counsel for appellants, the viscera report should therefore not be taken into account at all."

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's Judgments in Asraf Ali vs State Of Assam 2008, Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam 2013 and Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1157, wherein it was held that if a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it.

These judgments also concluded that if an essential piece of evidence is not put to the accused, it must be completely excluded from consideration and cannot form the basis of a conviction.

Apart from this lacuna in the prosecution's case, the High Court also found other fatal lapses in the chain of custody of the viscera itself.

The Court noted that there was no register entry proving its preservation, no responsible witness produced to testify how the sealed viscera travelled from the sealing doctor to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), and no forensic expert examined to confirm that it was received in an untampered, sealed state.

The Court also doubted the prosecution's theory regarding the forcible administration of the poison, noting that zinc phosphide has a "bitter taste" and a "bad smell".

The Bench noted that it cannot be administered "on the sly" to a hale and hearty person, as they would "resist tooth and nail", yet no injuries were found on the deceased or the accused to indicate any such struggle.

Since the viscera report alone was the sole conclusive evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, the Court said that once it could not be read in evidence, the accused were liable to be acquitted.

"The viscera report alone was a conclusive piece of evidence which would have gone to show that murder was done by the accused persons by administering poison and since the viscera report itself now becomes such an evidence which as per us cannot be read in evidence, we are definitely of the view that the appeal should be allowed and the accused be acquitted," the Court stated.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the husband, his father and his brother of all charges.