HC expresses concern over delay in viscera reports from forensic lab | Lucknow News

Prayagraj: Expressing strong concern over the delay in transmitting viscera reports from Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL) to investigating agencies, Allahabad high court has said this lapse is “disturbing”.The high court has directed UP chief secretary, DGP and director general of medical health 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 viscera examination is conducted to determine the cause of death or to detect the presence of any substances, such as poisons or drugs, in the deceased person’s body.These observations were made by Justice Samit Gopal while hearing the bail plea of a dowry death accused on Nov 7.The court noted that though the viscera of the deceased was sent to the Lab in Feb 2024, was prepared in Sept 2024, but the same was not received by the investigation officer (IO) until Feb 1, 2025. In fact, the report was annexed in the case diary only thereafter. The chargesheet had been filed on Sept 13, 2024 and cognizance was taken on Nov 11, 2024, even before the viscera report was received.“There has to be a procedure and process of expeditiously transmitting the viscera report by the Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL) to the investigating agency for its consideration,” the bench observed.The court said the investigation in the case had been concluded without receiving the viscera report and chargesheet 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.While 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. 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 cash. 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 bail to the applicant Ramratan and observed: “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”.