Lack Of Positive Viscera Report Not Conclusive Proof That Victim Didn’t Die Of Poisoning: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Dowry Death Case

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of the appellants in a dowry death case, despite the absence of a positive viscera report. The case revolved around the death of Tuli Shah, who allegedly committed suicide due to harassment for dowry.

The Court observed “Thus, the absence of detection of poison in the viscera report alone need not be treated as conclusive proof of the fact that the victim has not died of poison. As pointed out by this Court in a number of cases, where the deceased dies as a result of poisoning, it is difficult to successfully isolate the poison and recognize it. Lack of positive evidence in this respect would not result in throwing out the entire prosecution case, if the other circumstances clearly point out the guilt of the accused.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing an appeal against a Calcutta High Court judgment which had sentenced the appellants to 7 years for committing dowry death under Section 304-B IPC (Indian Penal Code) and 3 years for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

The case stemmed from an FIR filed by Uma Shankar Shah (PW-1), the de facto complainant, who alleged that cash and gold ornaments were given to the husband's family at the time of Tuli Shah's marriage. However, the appellant began harassing Tuli for more dowry shortly thereafter.

The prosecution's case was based on the assertion that Tuli Shah had committed suicide by consuming poison on September 16, 2011, due to incessant harassment by the appellants at her matrimonial home. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 498A, 304B, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the judgment leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that both the post-mortem report and the viscera report were silent regarding the exact cause of Tuli Shah's death and the presence of poison in her body.

The Court referred to findings from the trial court and the High Court, which strongly suggested that Tuli Shah's death resulted from poison consumption. Notably, the inquest report noted froth coming from the mouth and nose of the deceased and observed symptoms consistent with poisoning.

The Supreme Court also took note that the HC had relied on Bhupendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that the chemical examination of viscera is not mandatory in every dowry death case, underlining that the absence of a viscera report should not be fatal to the prosecution's case.

In that case, the court had observed “a chemical examination of the viscera is not mandatory in every case of a dowry death; even when a viscera report is sought for, its absence is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution when an unnatural death punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC or under Section 306 of the IPC takes place; in a case of an unnatural death inviting Section 304-B of the IPC (read with the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872) or Section 306 of the IPC(read with the presumption under Section 113- A of the Evidence Act, 1872) as long as there is evidence of poisoning, identification of the poison may not be absolutely necessary”.

The Court noted that the Medical Officer, PW-10, who conducted the post-mortem, testified that a pungent-smelling material was found in the stomach, which is often associated with poison consumption. He also admitted that if there is any delay in sending viscera samples for chemical examination, the poison may not be detected. In the present case, the viscera was received for chemical examination on 22nd February 2012 that is, after five months.

The Court referred to the case of Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar(1972) which relied on observations from Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology to hold that “in certain circumstances, traces of poison may not be found in the body due to evaporation, vomiting, purging, and detoxification processes.”

Therefore, the court concluded that the absence of poison detection in the viscera report alone should not be considered conclusive evidence that the victim did not die from poison.

It held “Considering the overall evidence on record, we find it difficult to take the view that in the absence of any positive viscera report, the prosecution could be said to have failed to establish its case. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that we should not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below.”

Lastly, it also highlighted the critical importance of preserving evidence in cases involving the detection of poison. Citing Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition, the Court stressed that preserved materials should be promptly sent to the relevant Forensic Science Laboratory through the appropriate police station. Failure to do so could result in the failure to detect poison during viscera analysis, even if poison is present.

Case title: Buddhadeb Saha v. State of West Bengal

Citation:  2023 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Click Here To Read/Download Order