Forensic Research Paper

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE J J J
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, PUNE

J J J
‘NEGATIVE VISCERA REPORT WHEN THE

J J J J J
CAUSE OF DEATH IS POISON: AN ANALYSIS’

J J J J J J
Word Count: 4343 words

j j j
Forensic Science j
2nd Internal Assessment

j j
Submitted To:
j Submitted By: j
Prof. Sunishtha Moghe

j j Shashank Upadhyay j
PRN: 16010125210
j
4th Year BA LLB (Hons.)

j j j j
TABLE OF CONTENTS j j
Abstract jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjj 3
Chapter 1 – PRELIMINARY
j j j jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj j 4-5
1.1 INTRODUCTION
J
1.2 KEYWORDS
J J
1.3 SCOPE
J
Chapter 2 – METHOD AND PROCEDURES

j j j j j jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj j 5
2.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
J J
2.2 RESEARCH QUESTION

J J
2.3 HYPOTHESIS
J
2.3 LIMITATIONS
J
Chapter 3 – ANALYSIS
j j j jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjj 6-12
3.1 REASONS FOR NON-DETECTION OF POISON IN THE VISCERA
J J J J J J J J
3.2 SPECIFIC POISONS GENERALLY DIFFICULT TO BE DETECTED BY FSLS

J J J J J J J J J
3.3 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

J J J
3.4 RECENT DECISIONS

J J
3.5 AUTHOR’S VIEW

J J
Chapter 4 – SUMMARY
j j j jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 13-14
4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
J J J J
4.2 CONCLUSION
J
REFERENCES jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 15-17

‘NEGATIVE VISCERA REPORT WHEN THE J J J J J
CAUSE OF DEATH IS POISON: AN ANALYSIS’ J J J J J J
Shashank Upadhyay* j
Abstract j
Thebconclusion of cause of deathbin a case wherebthe death is due to poisoningbbut viscera report
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j gives negative result, poses confusion to the autopsy doctor, law and public. The intricacy of failure
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j to find poisoniin viscera of the individual whose death is due to poisoning is a routine problem in
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j India, the cause of which has been analysed in this paper.iAnother issue is that only common
j poisons are tested in a viscera report. The residual analysis of poisons is limited to 10-15 poisons
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j commonly available in the area. The other major killer poisons/chemicals like insulin, KCl,
j j j j j j j j j j j j
j Adrenaline can’t be detected in viscera. The salient points covering various aspects of viscera
j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j analysis in various Forensic Science Laboratories have been discussed with special reference to
j the false positive or false negative results and interpretation of viscera report when it is negative in
j truly positive cases and vice-versa. Judgments have been referred to for a better understanding of
j this issue and the question of whether a negative viscera report implies that the cause of death was
j not poison has been explored.

j j j j
______________________________________________________________________________
*4th Year Law Student, Symbiosis Law School, Pune, India.
j j j j j j j j
Email: shashank.upadhyay@symlaw.ac.in
j
3
CHAPTER 1: PRELIMINARY J J
1.1 INTRODUCTIONJ J
The diagnosis of poisoning in the dead is done by:

j j j j j j j j j
• History and Circumstantial evidences1 j j j
• Clinical records2 j
• Postmortem examination3 j
• Chemical analysis4 j
When a poisoning death case is presented to an autopsy surgeon, the doctor is required to preserve
j the viscera for chemical analysis to know the nature of poisoning. The facility for the same is being
j provided by the authorities in the State or Central Forensic Science laboratories (hereinafter
j referred to as “FSL”). The viscera boxes are submitted in FSLs on a priority basis depending
j upon the gravity of the case. The report comes from FSL and the same is being read as such by
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
5
j Section 293 CrPC. The role of the autopsy surgeon is generally limited to preservation of viscera
j and the cause of death is commented upon only after the receipt of chemical analysis report. When
j the report clearly detects a poison, the cause of death may be easily opined by the autopsy surgeon.
j In many cases the viscera report comes negative, or detects the poison in the quantity not sufficient
j to cause death. This puts the autopsy surgeon in a fix as the police expect him to give cause of death
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j so as to reach a logical ending to the investigation. When there is no allegation in the case, the
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j poisoning being either accidental or suicidal, and no charges under Indian Penal Code are being
j made out after the investigation, the case is closed by the investigating agency/police even in the
j presence of negative viscera. The problem starts when there is suspicion of foul play in the case.
j This generally comes in the cases of murder,6 dowry deaths,7 rash and negligent act while handling
j the poison,8 and abetment of suicide.9 In these types of cases after the negative viscera report, when

1
K Matiharan & AK Patnaik, Modi’s Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology (5th ed. Lexis Nexis, 2010).
2
CK Parikh, Textbook of Medical Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (6th ed. CBS Publishers, 1999).
3
KSN Reddy, The essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (29th ed. Sugana Devi Publishers, 2018).
4
K Vij., Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology: Principles and Practice (5th ed. Elsevier Publishers, 2011).
5
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).
j j j j j j j j j j j
6
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 302 (Act No. 45 of 1860).
7
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 304B (Act No. 45 of 1860).
8
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 304A (Act No. 45 of 1860).
9
Indian Penal Code, 1860 §306, (Act No. 45 of 1860).
j j j j j j j j j j
4
j the autopsy surgeon terms the death as unnatural and due to poisoning, his opinion is frequently
j challenged by the aggrieved/accused party. j j j j j
1.2 KEYWORDS J
Toxicology, Poisoning, Viscera, Autopsy, Collection, Preservation, Analysis, False Negative

j j j j j j j j
j Report. j
1.3 SCOPE J
This paper reviews the current knowledge of the post-mortem toxicology when the death has been
j caused due to poisoning but the same does not show in the viscera report. There have been various
j false negative cases in India wherein the cause of death is unable to be identified because a viscera
j report is only able to determine common poisons and not other major killer poisons and chemicals.
j Because of this, the court does not have enough evidence to convict the accused and justice is
j unable to be served in a fair manner. The poisons detected by the various FSLs in India were
j ascertained by the Department of Forensic Medicine, A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi:10 j j j j j j j j j
• CFSL (Kolkata): Metallic poisons, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphides,
j j j j j j j j j
j alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides. j j j j j
• FSL (Delhi): Metallic poisons, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphides, alkaloids,
j j j j j j j j j j
j barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides. j j j j
• FSL (Ahmedabad): No poisons could be detected.

j j j j j j j
• CFSL (Chandigarh): Common insecticides, volatile, metallic/inorganic, sedatives. Ethyl

j j j j j j j
j alcohol, phosphides. j j
• CFSL (Hyderabad): Commonvolatile, pesticides, drugs, alkaloids & metallic.

j j j j j j j j
It can thus be clearly seen that generally the viscera reports were found to be positive only for ethyl
j alcohol, methyl alcohol, phosphides, zinc Phosphide, and aluminium phosphide. This research
j j j j j j j j j j
j paper discusses in detail the problem of False Negative cases emphasizing on the methods used by
j FSLs, present problems in detecting specific poisons, past studies and Court Judgments. It also
j recommends and suggests some changes, which could perhaps be the apt solution for curbing the

10
Dr. Abhishekh Yadav, Death due to Poisoning: Intricacies Thereof, 62 The Indian Police Journal 1 (2016).
5
j false negative cases in courts and assisting the medical professionals in accurately determining the
j poison which has caused the death of a victim.

j j j j j j j j
CHAPTER 2: METHOD AND PROCEDURES J J J J
2.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

J J
The authors have adopted a secondary methodology of research using articles, journals and books.
j This has been a doctrinal and analytical research, mostly based on publications of renowned
j authors. It is the author’s assurance that no part of this research paper is plagiarised.
2.2 RESEARCH QUESTION

J J
This paper aims to analyse the current scenario of post mortem toxicology with respect to a negative
j viscera report. The issue that shall be dealt with by way of this research paper:
2.2.1 Whether a negative Viscera report can be used to completely rule out poisoning as the
j cause of death. j j
2.3 HYPOTHESIS
J
It is hypothesised that when a viscera report shows a negative result, ‘poison’ is ruled out as the
j cause of death of the victim.j j j j j
2.4 LIMITATIONS
J
The limitation of this research paper is that it is based only on secondary sources, which is not
j considered as reliable as primary research. Another limitation is that this research paper is confined
j to the Indian jurisdiction and therefore unable to cover all aspects of toxicological analysis in case
j of a negative viscera report.

j j j j j
6
CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS J J
After a thorough analysis from renowned journals, articles and books, it was discovered that there
j are some instances in which poison is not detected in the viscera report; the reasons thereof have
j been discussed in this paper. It was also found out that there are some poisons, which cannot be
j detected by a viscera report at all. Lastly, Supreme Court judgments and recent decisions are
j examined for a better understanding of the issue in point.

j j j j j j j j j
3.1 REASONS FOR NON-DETECTION OF POISON IN THE VISCERA

J J J J J J J J
3.1.1 Residual Analysis Only j j j
The procedure followed in Indian laboratories is of residual analysis of the poisons meaning the
j actual poisons in their original chemical formre detected and not the metabolites.11
3.1.2 Substances Not Detected In Routine Examination

j j j j j j
It is well known that usual routine toxicological screening procedures may not detect hemoglobin
j like carboxyhaemoglobin, sulphamethemoglobin and methemoglobin, radioactive compounds,

j j j j j j
j antibiotics, non-steroid anti-inflammatory substances except aspirin and paracetamol, calcium

j j j j j j j j
j channel blockers and beta blockers.12 j j j j j
3.1.3 Lack of Suitable Chemical Tests

j j j j j j
If the specific tests are not performed, some poison may be missed in conventional screening
j procedures by FSL experts, like Insulin, vegetable poisons, organic poison especially alkaloid and
j glucosides, bacterial toxins & venoms, potassium Chloride etc.13 j j j j j j j
3.1.4 Removal of poisons from the body

j j j j j j j
The poison has been eliminated from the body due to vomiting, purging. Gaseous or volatile

11
AK Jaiswal & Millo, Handbook of Forensic Analytical Toxicology (3rd ed. Jaypee Brothers 2015).
12
Giroud Mangin, Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects. London, Greenwich Medical Media
j
(2003); V.K. Sharma, Poisons, Viscera Analysis, Report and its Interrelation, 6 International Journal of Medical
Toxicology and Legal Medicine 2 (2004).
13
supra note 2.
j j j
7
poisoning may be excreted thorough lungs by evaporation. Organic solvent poison gets evaporated
j during extraction and concentration.14

j j j j
3.1.5 Disintegration of the poison

j j j j j
The poison is metabolized, detoxified, altered in the body and converts to non-toxic form giving the
j negative analysis. There are many drugs, particularly anesthetic agents containing an ester bond,
j which are unstable in biological tissues and susceptible to chemical or enzymatic hydrolysis. The
j treatment given to patient may also alter the nature of poisonous substance.15
3.1.6 Decomposition of the tissues

j j j j j
It leads to chemical changes in certain poisons. Those poisons are then rendered identifiable by
j chemical tests e.g. chloral hydrate, sodium nitrite, cocaine, aconite, atropine etc.16
3.1.7 Negligible amount of poison in viscera

j j j j j j j
The detection of a highly potent poison with a low lethal dose is difficult. 17
3.1.8 Difficult Extraction

j j j
The proteinous poisons are rather impossible to extract after absorption in tissues. Similarly, the
j extraction of water soluble compounds is very difficult. So, they are not detected from tissues by
18
j chemical methods of analysis. j j j j
3.1.9 Improper Preservation

j j j
Leaking Jars, wrong preservative, insufficient quantity of samples, and wrong material of jars are
j few factors which interferes with the detection of poison.19

j j j j j j j j j

14
Anil Agarwal, Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (1st ed. Avichal Publishing Company 2017).
15
Frank T. Peters & Hans H. Maurer, Bioanalytical method validation and its implications for forensic and clinical
j
toxicology – A review, 68 Society for Forensic and Toxicologic Chemistry (2002).

16
Danielle M. Butzbach, The influence of putrefaction and sample storage on post-mortem toxicology results, 45
Forensic Science Medical Pathology Journal (2010).
17
OH Drummer, Post-mortem toxicology, 165 Forensic Science International Journal (2007).
j
18
Lokan James & Dymock, Apparent post-mortem production of high levels of cyanide in blood, 9 Journal of
Forensic Science (1987).
19
VA Boumba & KS Ziavrou, Biochemical pathways generating post-mortem volatile compounds co-detected
during forensic ethanol analyses, 52 Forensic Science International Journal (2008).
8
3.1.10 Tampering of the Viscera j j j j j
It may be done during preservation and in preserved bottles with vested interests or wrong motive.
20
j Addition of strong chemicals like soap or bleach powder alters the results in immunoassay.
3.1.11 False Positives j j
Cyanide, ethyl alcohol, ketones and sulphides may be formed from normal tissue components.
j Although the cyanide so formed is always in trace amounts, the alcohol produced by advanced
j decomposition may be upto 30 mg per cent. Some substances other than the poison may come j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
21
j positive which was taken in the hospital for therapeutic reason like promethazine etc.
3.2 SPECIFIC POISONS GENERALLY DIFFICULT TO BE DETECTED BY FSLS

J J J J J J J J J
3.2.1 Thallium j
It is difficult to isolate thallium in bodily fluids. The monovalent thalliumion, Tl+1, has properties
j similar to that of the commonly present sodium and potassium ions, Na+1 and K+1 respectively,
j making identification without a sophisticated instrumental chemical laboratory very difficult. 22

j j j j j j j j j
j
3.2.2 Polonium-210 j j
It is a rare and highly radioactive isotope. It is hard to detect because all the radiation remains in the
j body. A lethal dose could be as little as a few milligrams, which could be administered as a powder
j or dissolved in liquid.23
j j j
3.2.3 Nerium oleander j j
It contains oleandrine glycosides which cross-reacts during the positive results of digoxin
j immunoassay.24

20
AS Curry & Sunshine, The liver: blood ratio in cases of barbiturate poisoning, 3 Toxicol Appl Pharmacol (1960).
j
21
Suzuki Watanabe, Drugs and poisons in humans: a handbook of practical analysis, Basel Journal (2005).
22
supra note 15.
j j j
23
Harding Sample, Polonium-210: the hard-to-detect poison that killed Alexander Litvinenko, The Guardian (Aug.
j
8th 2014, 1:06 pm), http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/ polonium-210-poison-alexander-litvinenko.

24
K Cheung K & P Duffy, Detection of poisoning by plant-origin cardiac glycoside with the Abbott TDx analyzer,
j
35 Clinical Chemistry Journal of Forensic Science 2 (1989).
9
3.2.4 Snake Bites j j
It is not possible to detect the venom by chemical analysis as the venom is destroyed very fast.
j Snake venom is a Protein and cannot be separated from body tissues. Immunoassay method may
j detect these poisons but this facility is not easily available in all FSLs.25
3.2.6 Heroin26 j j
The heroin (Diacetyl Morphine) is very difficult to detect as it is rapidly hydrolyzed to monoacetyl
j morphine and morphine. Therefore, the samples should be tested for morphine.
3.3 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

J J J
It was found that there had been multiple instances in the past wherein the medical evidence in the
j viscera report has been insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, however the Supreme Court
j has held that a mere negative result of the viscera report does not rule out poison as the cause of
j death. Some of such instances have been discussed:

j j j j j j j j
3.3.1 Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay27

j j j j j j j j
The accused was convicted under Section 302.28 The autopsy surgeon had found no pathological
j lesion in the pancreas, the kidney, the liver and any other internal organ. He gave the opinion after
j the receipt of the negative Chemical Analyser’s report and hospital records that death could have
j occurred due to diabetic coma. He later admitted in the court that he may have expressed incorrect
j opinion. The court observed that if circumstantial evidence is so decisive that the Court can
j unhesitatingly hold that death was a result of administration of poison (though not detected) and j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j that the poison must have been administered by the accused person, then the conviction can be
j rested on it. j j
“What assistance a man of science can give he gives, but it is too much to say that the guilt of
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j the accused must, in all cases, should be demonstrated by the isolation of the poison”.

25
supra note 18.
j j j
26
id.
j
27
Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500.
28
10
3.3.2 Palinoswamy v. State of Bombay29
j j j j j
If the medical evidence is unable to detect/determine the poison even then the conviction can be
j recorded if the oral and circumstantial evidence establishes the guilt.

j j j j j j j j j
3.3.3 Mahabir v. State of Bihar30

j j j j j
The accused were convicted under Section 302. 31 The doctor who performed the post mortem
j examination on the dead body gave evidence that the death of the deceased might have been a
j natural death. He was declared hostile by prosecution in a case of alleged murder by poisoning. The
j viscera report was negative. But still the court observed that “the pathologist’s role is secondary
j and several poisons particularly synthetic hypnotics and vegetable alkaloid groups do not leave any
j characteristic signs which can be noted on PM.” The court decided that mere non detection of the j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j poison does not mean that the death was natural.

j j j j j j j j
3.3.4 Bhupender Singh v. State of Punjab32

j j j j j j
The court observed that “The chemical examiner does not, as a rule, give an opinion as to the cause
j of death but merely gives report of the chemical examination. The report itself is not crucial. The
j report should normally be forwarded to the doctor who conducted the autopsy.
In poison murder cases33, the accused are not acquitted solely on the ground that the prosecution has
j failed to prove that the accused had the poison in his possession, and are to be acquitted by the
j Court taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

j j j j j j j j j
3.3.5 Taiyab Khan and Others v. State of Bihar34

j j j j j j j j
In a case of 304B IPC, it was contended by the accused that the viscera report would have shown
j whether the dowry death of the appellant’s wife occurred on account of consumption of poison.
j Since the chemical examination report of the viscera was not received, it could not be said to be a
j case of death by poisoning. The Supreme Court rejected the contention and decided that,

29
Palinoswamy v. State of Bombay, AIR 1968 Bom 127.
j j j j j j j j j
30
Mahabir v. State of Bihar, 1972 SCR (3) 639.
j j j j j j j j j
31
32
Bhupender Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 SCR (3) 409.
j j j j j j j j j j
33
34
Taiyab Khan and Others v. State of Bihar, 2005 13 SCC 455.
11
“Since Section 304-B of the IPC refers to death which occurs otherwise than under normal
j circumstances, the absence of a viscera report would not make any difference to the fate of the j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j case”. j
3.3.6 Ananda Mohan Sen and Another v. State of West Bengal35

j j j j j j j j j j
The autopsy surgeon stated that the unnatural death was due to the effect of poisoning but he would
j be able to conclusively state the cause of death by poisoning only, if he could detect poison in the
j viscera report. This Court noted that it was not in dispute that the death was an unnatural death and
j held that the deposition of the witness indicated that the death was due to poisoning. It is only the
j nature of the poison that could not be identified. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant
j under Section 498A, 306 of the IPC was upheld.

j j j j j j j j j
3.3.7 Bhupendra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh36

j j j j j j j
The autopsy surgeon had given the cause of death as suspected poisoning. The accused contended
j that in absence of viscera report the death could not be attributed to poisoning. The Supreme Court
j observed that “In a case of an unnatural death inviting Section 304-B of the IPC or Section 306 of
j the IPC as long as there is evidence of poisoning, identification of the poison may not be absolutely
j necessary. Even when a viscera report is sought for, its absence is not necessarily fatal to the case”
j and rejected the contention of the accused.

j j j j j j
3.4 RECENT DECISIONS J J
The Calcutta High Court recently appointed an amicus curiae or ‘friend of the court’ to assist it in
j getting answers related to Viscera preservation and examination. “What comprises viscera, how
j long can it be preserved and what is the law governing its examination at forensic science
j laboratories?” The amicus curiae was told by Experts that a viscera can be preserved only if j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j properly refrigerated. If preserved in common salt water, as it is normally done, the sample will
j decompose in six months. The amicus curiae has also cited a Supreme Court order which directsj j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

35
j Ananda Mohan Sen and Another v. State of West Bengal, 2007 10 SCC 774.
36
j Bhupendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cri Appeal No. 1774 of 2008. j j j j j j j j j j j
12
j that a viscera should be sent to a forensic science laboratory immediately if poisoning is
j suspected.37
3.5 AUTHOR’S VIEW

J J
This study disproves the hypothesis that poison as the cause of death is ruled out merely because of
j a negative viscera report. It is the personal opinion of the author that currently, the investing police
j officers are still under the impression that a negative viscera report means that poison could not
j have been the cause of death. There are several poisons which cannot be detected by a common test
j and it is not practical to conduct separate tests for each and every poison in the world. The several
j judgments discussed in this paper also prove that the judges agree that just because a poison has not
j been identified in the report, does not mean that there was a natural cause of death. The totality of
j the circumstances are considered, which is why this erroneous assumption should not exist in the
j minds of officers conducting the inquiry. Further suggestions to amend this current scenario have
j been discussed in the next chapter.

j j j j j j
CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY J J
It is thus very clear that the hypothesis has been disproven and a negative viscera report does not
j rule out the possibility of a cause of death by poison. In order for there to be a clearer understanding
j regarding this conclusion amongst the investigating officers, some recommendations have been put
j forth by the author. j j j
4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

J J J
• It is practically not possible to undertake test for each and every poison, so the police
j investigators should be meticulous in their approach. They should also give a brief description j j j j j j j j j j j j j
j of the case highlighting the aspects which may point to the nature of poison consumed. It may

37
J. Gupta, HC appoints ‘amicus curiae’ to help it determine what ‘viscera’ is and how long it can be preserved, The
Times of India. (Dec 5th 2013, 5:05 pm), http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/ Hc-Appoints-‘Amicus-Curiae’-
To-Help-It-Determine-What-‘Viscera’.
13
j include crime scene report, statement of the relatives/friends, recent purchases of
j j j j j j j j j j
j medicine/drugs by the deceased etc. j j j j j
• There should be a designated time frame for the police to deposit the viscera in FSL after
j Postmortem.
• There should be a separate storage facility for the preservation of toxicological specimens at a
j desired temperature range in the mortuaries, police station and FSLs.

j j j j j j j j j j
• Strict operating guidelines should be enforced to preserve vomitus and gastric lavage samples,
j in the casualty of the hospital/ any medical center where the patient first presents.
• In an admitted case, the blood and urine samples should be collected during the first hours of
j hospital stay. j
• A detailed history, including treatment summary should be provided to the FSL’s so as to guide
j them to run tests for those poisons which are not detected in routine examination.
4.2 CONCLUSIONJ J
The investigating police officers and the supervising senior police officers must have a very clear
j concept that mere a negative viscera report does not rule out death due to poisoning, as the viscera
j tests has a lot of limitations and restricted to very few common poisons. It should not lead to the end
j of the investigation into a death due to poisoning. Moreover, FSLs should clearly specify in their
j reports the exact name of poisons for which the tests have been conducted.
The laboratory should mention the fallacies and limitations of the tests in their reports. This will
j prevent the misinformation to the investigators/ relatives who are generally in the impression that a
j negative viscera report rules out death by poisoning. The FSL must have accreditation, its
j equipments and methods of analysis should be incorporated in report with the credential ofj j j j j j j j j j j j j
j scientist. As per judgments of the apex court and the facts described above, the autopsy surgeon
j should not be deterred by mere non-detection of poison in the chemical analysis of viscera. The
j doctor who has conducted the postmortem examination depending upon PM findings, the medical
j records, circumstantial evidences and after ruling out any other cause of death can very well give
j the manner of death as unnatural due to a poisonous substance.

j j j j j j j j j j
14
REFERENCES
BOOKS
• AK Jaiswal & Millo, Handbook of Forensic Analytical Toxicology, (3rd ed. Jaypee
Brothers 2015).
• ANIL AGARWAL, Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, (1st ed. Avichal
Publishing Company 2017).
• CK Parikh, Textbook of Medical Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (6th ed. CBS
Publishers 1999).
• K Matiharan & AK Patnaik, Modi’s Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology (5th ed. Lexis
Nexis 2010).
• K Vij., Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology: Principles and Practice (5th ed.
Elsevier Publishers 2011).
• KSN Reddy, The essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (29th ed. Sugana Devi
Publishers 2018).
JOURNAL ARTICLES
• AS Curry & Sunshine, The liver: blood ratio in cases of barbiturate poisoning, 3 Toxicol
Appl Pharmacol (1960).
• Danielle M. Butzbach, The influence of putrefaction and sample storage on post-mortem
toxicology results, 45 Forensic Science Medical Pathology Journal (2010).
• Dr. Abhishekh Yadav, Death due to Poisoning: Intricacies Thereof, 62 The Indian Police
Journal 1 (2016).
• Frank T. Peters & Hans H. Maurer, Bioanalytical method validation and its implications
for forensic and clinical toxicology – A review, 68 Society for Forensic and Toxicologic
Chemistry (2002).
• Giroud Mangin, Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects. London,
Greenwich Medical Media (2003).
15
• HM Stevens, The stability of some drugs and poisons in putrefying human liver tissues,
24 Journal of Forensic Science (1984).
• K Cheung K & P Duffy, Detection of poisoning by plant-origin cardiac glycoside with
the Abbott TDx analyzer, 35 Clinical Chemistry Journal of Forensic Science 2 (1989).
• Lokan James & Dymock, Apparent post-mortem production of high levels of cyanide in
blood, 9 Journal of Forensic Science (1987).
• OH Drummer, Post-mortem toxicology, 165 Forensic Science International Journal
(2007).
• Suzuki Watanabe, Drugs and poisons in humans: a handbook of practical analysis, Basel
Journal (2005).
• V.K. Sharma, Poisons, Viscera Analysis, Report and its Interrelation, 6 International
Journal of Medical Toxicology and Legal Medicine 2 (2004).
• VA Boumba & KS Ziavrou, Biochemical pathways generating post-mortem volatile
compounds co-detected during forensic ethanol analyses, 52 Forensic Science
International Journal (2008).
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
• Harding Sample, Polonium-210: The hard-to-detect poison that killed Alexander
Litvinenko, The Guardian, (Aug 8th 2014, 1:06 pm).
• J. Gupta, HC appoints ‘amicus curiae’ to help it determine what ‘viscera’ is and how long
it can be preserved, The Times of India, (December 5th 2013, 5:05 pm).
CASES
• Ananda Mohan Sen and Another v. State of West Bengal, 2007 10 SCC 774.
• Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500.
• Bhupender Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 SCR (3) 409.
• Bhupendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cri Appeal No. 1774 of 2008.
• Mahabir v. State of Bihar, 1972 SCR (3) 639.
• Palinoswamy v. State of Bombay, AIR 1968 Bom 127.
• Taiyab Khan and Others v. State of Bihar, 2005 13 SCC 455.
16
STATUTES
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860).
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).
LEGAL DATABASES
• Manupatra.
• SCC Online.
• Jstor.
17

Forensic Research Paper

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Forensic Research Paper

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE J J J

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, PUNE

‘NEGATIVE VISCERA REPORT WHEN THE

CAUSE OF DEATH IS POISON: AN ANALYSIS’

Word Count: 4343 words

2nd Internal Assessment

Prof. Sunishtha Moghe

4th Year BA LLB (Hons.)

Abstract jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjj 3

Chapter 2 – METHOD AND PROCEDURES

2.2 RESEARCH QUESTION

3.2 SPECIFIC POISONS GENERALLY DIFFICULT TO BE DETECTED BY FSLS

3.3 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

3.4 RECENT DECISIONS

3.5 AUTHOR’S VIEW

REFERENCES jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 15-17

CAUSE OF DEATH IS POISON: AN ANALYSIS’ J J J J J J

j not poison has been explored.

The diagnosis of poisoning in the dead is done by:

• History and Circumstantial evidences1 j j j

j challenged by the aggrieved/accused party. j j j j j

Toxicology, Poisoning, Viscera, Autopsy, Collection, Preservation, Analysis, False Negative

j ascertained by the Department of Forensic Medicine, A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi:10 j j j j j j j j j

j alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides. j j j j j

j barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides. j j j j

• FSL (Ahmedabad): No poisons could be detected.

• CFSL (Chandigarh): Common insecticides, volatile, metallic/inorganic, sedatives. Ethyl

• CFSL (Hyderabad): Commonvolatile, pesticides, drugs, alkaloids & metallic.

j poison which has caused the death of a victim.

CHAPTER 2: METHOD AND PROCEDURES J J J J

2.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.2 RESEARCH QUESTION

j cause of death of the victim.j j j j j

j of a negative viscera report.

j examined for a better understanding of the issue in point.

3.1 REASONS FOR NON-DETECTION OF POISON IN THE VISCERA

3.1.1 Residual Analysis Only j j j

3.1.2 Substances Not Detected In Routine Examination

j like carboxyhaemoglobin, sulphamethemoglobin and methemoglobin, radioactive compounds,

j antibiotics, non-steroid anti-inflammatory substances except aspirin and paracetamol, calcium

j channel blockers and beta blockers.12 j j j j j

3.1.3 Lack of Suitable Chemical Tests

j glucosides, bacterial toxins & venoms, potassium Chloride etc.13 j j j j j j j

3.1.4 Removal of poisons from the body

j during extraction and concentration.14

3.1.5 Disintegration of the poison

3.1.6 Decomposition of the tissues

3.1.7 Negligible amount of poison in viscera

3.1.8 Difficult Extraction

3.1.9 Improper Preservation

j few factors which interferes with the detection of poison.19

toxicology – A review, 68 Society for Forensic and Toxicologic Chemistry (2002).

3.1.11 False Positives j j

3.2 SPECIFIC POISONS GENERALLY DIFFICULT TO BE DETECTED BY FSLS

j making identification without a sophisticated instrumental chemical laboratory very difficult. 22

3.2.3 Nerium oleander j j

8th 2014, 1:06 pm), http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/ polonium-210-poison-alexander-litvinenko.

35 Clinical Chemistry Journal of Forensic Science 2 (1989).

3.3 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

j death. Some of such instances have been discussed:

3.3.1 Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay27

j recorded if the oral and circumstantial evidence establishes the guilt.

3.3.3 Mahabir v. State of Bihar30

j poison does not mean that the death was natural.