Allahabad HC: FSL Reports Without Scientific Data Inadmissible In Evidence

An expert report that merely records a conclusion without disclosing the data, tests conducted, or scientific criteria adopted is of no avail and cannot be read in evidence. The Allahabad High Court has set aside the life imprisonment of a wife and her alleged paramour, ruling that the prosecution's failure to prove the safe preservation of viscera and the absence of reasoning in the forensic report proved fatal to the murder charge.

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant heard the appeals challenging the conviction of two individuals accused of poisoning a man with Aluminium Phosphide. The Court emphasized that for an expert opinion to be valid, it must furnish necessary scientific criteria to enable the Judge to form an independent judgment.

The Inadmissibility of Reasonless Forensic Reports

The Court scrutinized the forensic evidence, noting that the FSL report report was the mainstay of the prosecution's case. However, it found that the report failed to disclose any basic scientific criteria or methodology used to identify the poison. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. The purpose of reasons in an expert report is not far to seek. The reasons stated by the expert in support of the conclusions will enable the Court to independently test the correctness of such opinion."

Referring to the law laid down in Madan Gopal Kakkar Vs. Naval Dubey and Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd and Others, the Court held that without specific reasons, an expert report remains an inadmissible ipse dixit. It further noted that Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure exempts scientific experts from personal appearance but does not exempt the report from being scientifically rigorous.

Failure to Establish Safe Custody of Viscera

Another critical lapse was the lack of evidence regarding the storage of the viscera sample during the year-long gap between its collection and testing. The Court held that the burden lies squarely on the prosecution to prove that storage conditions were safe and appropriate to prevent degradation. It noted that inappropriate conditions could render a sample unfit for future testing, thereby breaking the chain of evidence.

Court Directions

"The Court has the following directions:

I. Conclusions in the FSL report expert report have to be supported with specific reasons. The reasons include the scientific criteria adopted, laboratory tests, and other material and scientific protocols followed in testing the sample and which form the basis of the conclusions in the FSL/ Expert Report.

II. The credentials/qualifications and experience of the expert who has authored the FSL Report/ expert report will be disclosed in the FSL/expert report.

III. The details of safe preservation of the samples (in the instant case, it was the viscera report) and the fitness of sample for testing shall also be recorded in the expert report.

IV. Strict SOPs for receipt and transfer of samples to be attested by the laboratories/ experts shall be laid down and revealed in the prosecution evidence. The aforesaid procedures shall contain appropriate safeguards against tampering or degradation of the samples.

V. The doctors who have conducted the post mortems shall also be confronted with the findings of the FSL.

VI. The competent authorities including Director General of Police, Directors of Forensic Science Laboratory shall ensure proper training of officials and experts for implementation of the above said safeguards in order to uphold the law and prevent the miscarriage of justice."

Background:

The case involved the death of Jagdish @ Jagdhar on July 20, 2013. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, the wife of the deceased and her nephew (alleged to be in an illicit relationship), administered poison (Aluminium Phosphide) in the deceased's meal. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302/34 and 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

However, the High Court noted that the testimonies of the father (PW-1) and a village witness (PW-2) were contradictory to the medical records. While the witnesses claimed they brought the deceased to the hospital and that he named the killers, the medical report (Ex Ka-4) showed the wife herself admitted him to the hospital. Furthermore, following the principles in Jaipal vs. State of Haryana ( "2003 1 SCC 169": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 517) and Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab ( "2024 (3) SCC 164": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 514), the Court observed that Aluminium Phosphide has a very pungent smell and is rarely consumed accidentally or administered homicidal without resistance. Finding the FSL report inadmissible due to lack of reasoning and the prosecution story full of holes, the Court acquitted the appellants.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4257 of 2018
Case Title: Gyanmati @ Sangathiya Versus State of U.P. (with CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4349 of 2016)
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sheeba Jose, Shri Mohd. Kaleem, Jawahar Lal Maurya, Ram Naresh Singh, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Anupam Maurya, Purushottam Pandey, Vindo Kumar Kushwaha
For the Respondent(s): Shri Rishi Chaddha, G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 247