FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera

"The opinion of the expert which is bereft of reasons or does not disclose the basic scientific criteria which has guided the expert to reach the conclusion is of no avail." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report is inadmissible in evidence if it merely states conclusions without disclosing the tests conducted or the scientific criteria adopted.

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed that expert opinions must be supported by reasons to allow the court to independently test their correctness, issuing sweeping directives to overhaul viscera testing protocols in the state.

The appellants, Gyanmati and Ashok Kumar, were convicted by a trial court for allegedly poisoning Gyanmati's husband using Aluminium Phosphide. The prosecution claimed the duo had an illicit relationship and mixed the fatal substance into the deceased's food. Challenging their convictions for murder and poisoning, the appellants moved the High Court, arguing that the witness testimonies were contradictory and the viscera evaluation was deeply flawed.

The primary question before the court was whether an FSL report simply recording the presence of poison, without detailing underlying scientific data, can be read in evidence. The court was also called upon to determine whether homicidal poisoning by Aluminium Phosphide could be established in the absence of forcible administration, and whether the safe custody of the viscera had been proven.

Expert Reports Must Disclose Scientific Criteria

The High Court heavily scrutinized the FSL report, which formed the mainstay of the prosecution's case. The bench noted that the document merely recorded the "ipse dixit or its conclusion" that Aluminium Phosphide was present in the viscera sample. The court observed that the report failed to disclose any data, laboratory tests, or scientific criteria that guided the expert to that definitive conclusion.

Court Must Be Able To Test Expert's Conclusion

While noting that the physical presence of the government scientific expert is exempted under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the court stressed that the opinion must still stand legal scrutiny under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgments in Madan Gopal Kakkar and Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, the bench emphasized that an expert report's sole purpose is to assist the court, and without reasons, the court cannot independently evaluate the correctness of the opinion.

"The reasons stated by the expert in support of the conclusions will enable the Court to independently test the correctness of such opinion."

Aluminium Phosphide Poisoning Is Rarely Homicidal

Delving into the chemical attributes of Aluminium Phosphide, the court examined leading medical jurisprudence authorities and the Supreme Court's ruling in Jaipal vs. State of Haryana. The bench highlighted the highly pungent, garlicky odor of the substance, which makes accidental ingestion nearly impossible. The court noted that because of its strong smell, the poison is predominantly used in suicides.

No Evidence Of Forcible Administration

The court observed that homicidal administration of Aluminium Phosphide typically requires force due to its repulsive odor. Since the post-mortem report recorded no physical injuries or marks of struggle on the deceased's body, the court found merit in the defence argument that the poison was not administered forcibly. This finding severely dented the prosecution's theory of a secretly poisoned meal.

Failure To Establish Safe Custody Of Viscera

Another glaring loophole identified by the court was the prosecution's failure to prove the safe preservation of the viscera sample. The sample was drawn in July 2013, received by the FSL a month later, and tested over a year later in September 2014. The court found absolutely no evidence that the sample was kept under controlled laboratory conditions during this massive delay.

Possibility Of Degradation Renders Sample Unfit

The bench emphasized that the burden lies entirely on the prosecution to prove that storage conditions were safe and appropriate for future testing. The court noted that the FSL was legally obligated to record the state of the sample upon receipt and certify its fitness for testing, which was absent here. The court held that this long gap raised a real possibility of sample degradation, rendering it unfit for evaluation.

Doctor Must Be Confronted With FSL Findings

The High Court also faulted the prosecution for never confronting the doctor who conducted the autopsy with the FSL report. The bench observed that during such a confrontation, a doctor can verify whether the physical symptoms of specific poisoning were actually present in the internal organs. The court held that without this crucial step, the viscera report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of poisoning.

Sweeping Directives Issued To FSL And Police

Expressing concern over the faultlines exposed in the criminal justice system, the High Court issued comprehensive directives for future investigations. The bench ordered that expert reports must comprehensively specify the scientific criteria, laboratory tests, and protocols followed. Furthermore, the details of safe preservation and the fitness of the sample for testing must be explicitly recorded by the expert.

Strict SOPs Ordered For Evidence Handling

Further strengthening the investigative framework, the court directed that strict Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the receipt and transfer of samples must be laid down and revealed in the prosecution evidence. These procedures must contain appropriate safeguards against tampering or degradation. The court tasked the Director General of Police and Directors of FSLs with ensuring proper training of officials to uphold these legal safeguards.

Finding the trial court's judgment perverse and contrary to the weight of evidence, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal appeals were allowed, and both appellants were honorably acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2026