Allahabad HC Acquits Wife and Nephew in Poisoning Case, Discards FSL Report for Lack of Reasons

The Division Bench found the FSL report inadmissible for recording bare conclusions without scientific criteria, and held key prosecution witnesses entirely unreliable on material facts.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant has set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on Gyanmati @ Sangathiya and Ashok Kumar @ Putti Lal under Sections 302/34 and 328/34 of the IPC. The bench acquitted both appellants, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The FSL report, which was the mainstay of the prosecution case, was discarded as inadmissible because it recorded only a bare conclusion about the presence of Aluminium Phosphide in the viscera sample without disclosing any scientific tests, criteria, or reasoning. The judgment also raises systemic concerns about forensic investigation standards and lays out detailed suggestions for reform.

The Case Before the High Court

The appeals arose from a judgment dated 27 June 2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 547 of 2013. The trial court had convicted Gyanmati, wife of the deceased Jagdish @ Jagdhar, and Ashok Kumar, her nephew, of causing Jagdish's death by administering poison. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 302/34 IPC, and ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 328/34 IPC.

The FIR — Case Crime No. 99 of 2013 — was registered at P.S. Hathgaon, District Fatehpur, on 22 July 2013. The prosecution alleged that on 20 July 2013 at about 11:00 AM, Gyanmati and Ashok Kumar mixed poison in Jagdish's meal. When the deceased found his dal bitter, the accused poured milk into it to make it palatable. Jagdish died at Sadar Hospital, Fatehpur, that evening at 7:30 PM.

Gyanmati filed Criminal Appeal No. 4257 of 2018. Ashok Kumar filed Criminal Appeal No. 4349 of 2016. The bench heard the appeals together and decided them by a common judgment.

Why the FIR Delay Mattered

The deceased died on 20 July 2013 at about 7:30 PM. The FIR was lodged only on 22 July 2013 at 8:45 PM — a gap of nearly two days. The bench found that the first informant, Lal Singh (PW-1) and father of the deceased, had himself reached the site prior to the death. No satisfactory explanation for the delay was offered during the trial. The bench held that the FIR was registered belatedly and as an afterthought, and that this delay would be fatal to the prosecution case when read alongside the other evidence.

Prosecution Witnesses Found Unreliable

PW-1, Lal Singh, and PW-2, Durga Prasad, were the prosecution's principal oral witnesses. Both claimed to have taken the deceased to Hathgaon Hospital and then to Sadar Hospital, Fatehpur.

Under cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he learnt of his son's deteriorating condition from a person in the village whose name he could not disclose, and that he did not go to Hathgaon Hospital at all. He stated he reached Sadar Hospital with a small group, arriving about two hours before sunset, and that his son died half an hour after their arrival. This directly contradicted his earlier deposition that he had taken the deceased from his house to hospital.

PW-2 stated that the group had taken Jagdish on a Bolero to Hathgaon Hospital, from where he was referred to Sadar Hospital. Yet under cross-examination he confirmed that both accused were present at Sithaura when he arrived, but that neither accompanied the group to Hathgaon Hospital.

The medical document Ex. Ka-4 — drawn up by the government doctors at District Hospital, Fatehpur — recorded that it was Gyanmati herself who brought the deceased to the hospital at 6:25 PM on 20 July 2013. The post mortem report contained the same recital. PW-4, Dr. Sudhir Shrivastava, affirmed Ex. Ka-4 in his testimony. This official document, carrying a presumption of correctness and unchallenged by the prosecution, directly contradicted the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 about who had hospitalised the deceased.

The bench held that the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding hospitalisation of the deceased were “entirely false and are accordingly discarded.” Further, their claims that the deceased had named the accused as his poisoners before death were also disbelieved. The alleged motive — an illicit relationship between the two accused — was found to rest on bare assertions, with no corroborating evidence. The bench held that the motive had not been established.

The FSL Report: Inadmissible for Absence of Reasons

The FSL report dated 18 September 2014 (Ex. Ka-14) was the prosecution's central piece of evidence. It recorded that Aluminium Phosphide was found in the viscera sample of the deceased. Because the FSL, Lucknow falls within the category of institutions covered by Section 293 CrPC, the report was admitted without requiring the authoring expert to appear and prove it.

However, the bench held that admissibility under Section 293 CrPC does not insulate an expert report from scrutiny under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and the binding principles on expert evidence laid down by the Supreme Court.

The bench relied on two Supreme Court decisions. In Madan Gopal Kakkar v. Naval Dubey (1992) 3 SCC 204, the Supreme Court held that an expert must place before the Court all materials and data which induced the conclusion, so that the Court may form its own judgment. In Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC 709, the Supreme Court reiterated that expert evidence must be based on reliable principles, that the expert must be within a recognised field of expertise, and that the real function of an expert is to put before the Court the reasons which led to the conclusion.

The bench found that Ex. Ka-14 recorded only a bare conclusion — ipse dixit — that Aluminium Phosphide was present. It disclosed no data, no tests conducted, no scientific criteria, and no material which guided the expert. The report was accordingly held to be inadmissible and the opinion rendered therein was discarded.

Scientific Literature on Aluminium Phosphide and Its Significance

To determine the scientific plausibility of the prosecution's theory of homicidal poisoning, the bench summoned Dr. Sapna Sharma, Associate Professor and Dean, School of Forensic Science, U.P. State Institute of Forensic Science, Lucknow. Dr. Sharma, who holds a Ph.D. from CSIR, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, and has worked in toxicology at institutions including the University of Chicago and the University of Gothenberg, was accepted by the bench as a credible expert in the field of toxicology.

Dr. Sharma placed before the Court extracts from two authoritative works: Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology by Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy, and Forensic Medicine and Toxicology for Police Investigation by Dr. S.N. Tiwari. Both works set out the chemical properties of Aluminium Phosphide, clinical symptoms of poisoning, and methods of detection including the Gutzeit test and the Ammonium Molybdate method.

Crucially, the scientific literature noted that Aluminium Phosphide has an extremely pungent, garlicky or decaying fish odour. Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy's work states plainly that poisoning is usually suicidal, occasionally accidental, and rarely homicidal. The Supreme Court in Jaipal v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 169 had already observed that Aluminium Phosphide, on account of its very pungent smell, “cannot be taken accidentally.” This position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 3 SCC 164.

The bench further noted that the post mortem report recorded no external injuries on the body of the deceased, supporting the submission that Aluminium Phosphide had not been administered forcibly. Given the strongly pungent nature of the substance, the bench found there was little likelihood of it being consumed accidentally. These findings, taken together, gravely undermined the prosecution's theory of homicidal administration of poison through food.

The bench also noted that none of the specific chemical tests for detecting Aluminium Phosphide described in the authoritative literature were depicted anywhere in Ex. Ka-14.

Failure to Confront the Post Mortem Doctor with the FSL Report

The post mortem conducted by Dr. Sudhir Shrivastava (PW-4) on 21 July 2013 returned an open verdict: the cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved for further examination. PW-4 stated only in general terms that there was a possibility of the deceased having been poisoned. Under cross-examination, PW-4 testified that there were symptoms of food poisoning.

The bench held that the prosecution was obligated to confront PW-4 with the FSL report after it was obtained, to verify whether the symptoms and post mortem findings were consistent with Aluminium Phosphide poisoning. Had this been done, the doctor would have been in a position to indicate whether the post mortem findings independently corroborated the FSL opinion. The failure to carry out this confrontation meant that the FSL report remained an isolated and unverified document, with no independent medical corroboration from the autopsy findings.

Safe Preservation of the Viscera Sample: Burden Not Discharged

The viscera sample was preserved at the time of the post mortem on 21 July 2013, received by the FSL on 16 August 2013, and examined only on 18 September 2014 — more than a year after collection. There was no evidence in the trial record about how the sample was stored between collection and dispatch, or about the laboratory conditions in which it was kept at the FSL.

The bench held that the FSL was under an obligation to record the condition of the sample at the time of receipt and to certify the laboratory conditions in which it was stored. The possibility of degradation of the viscera sample over such a long period, rendering it unfit for reliable testing, was a real one. The burden of proving safe and appropriate storage conditions rested on the prosecution. That burden was not discharged.

Defence Version Accepted in Part

In proceedings under Section 313 CrPC, Gyanmati stated that her husband had left home in the morning, began vomiting on his return, and that she and her nephew Ashok took him first to Hathgaon Hospital and then to Sadar Hospital, Fatehpur, where he died. Ashok Kumar corroborated this version, stating that he had been sent by his mother to his aunt's house on learning of his uncle's condition, and that the two of them ensured the deceased received hospital care.

The bench found these responses to be satisfactory. The conduct of both accused in rushing the deceased to hospital was corroborated by Ex. Ka-4, which recorded that it was Gyanmati who brought the deceased to the District Hospital. Contrary statements by PW-1 and PW-2 had already been disbelieved.

Trial Court Judgment Set Aside

The bench held that the trial court had erred on multiple counts: it believed the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 despite their being unreliable witnesses; it relied on the FSL report which was inadmissible in evidence; and it failed to properly appreciate the defence responses under Section 313 CrPC. The judgment of the trial court was characterised as perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.

Suggestions for Reform

The bench appended five concrete suggestions aimed at addressing what it described as faultlines in the criminal justice system exposed by this case. FSL reports must include specific reasons, the scientific criteria adopted, and details of the laboratory tests conducted. The qualifications and experience of the authoring expert must be disclosed in the report itself. Details of safe preservation of samples and their fitness for testing must be recorded in the expert report. Strict standard operating procedures for receipt and transfer of samples, with safeguards against tampering and degradation, must be documented in prosecution evidence. Doctors who conduct post mortems must be confronted with FSL findings during trial. The bench directed the Director General of Police and the Directors of the Forensic Science Laboratories to ensure proper training of officials and experts for implementation of these safeguards.

Order

Both criminal appeals were allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27 June 2016 in Sessions Trial No. 547 of 2013 was set aside. Gyanmati @ Sangathiya and Ashok Kumar @ Putti Lal were honourably acquitted of all charges under Sections 328/34 and 302/34 IPC. Both appellants were directed to be forthwith released from prison unless required in any other criminal case. The District Legal Services Authority was directed to serve a Hindi translation of the judgment upon the appellants.