The view expressed in Ananda Mohan Sen and Another Vs. State of West Bengal[SC]. In that case the exact cause of death could not be stated since the viscera preserved by the autopsy surgeon were to be sent to the chemical expert. In fact, one of the witnesses stated that the unnatural death was due to the effect of poisoning but he would be able to conclusively state the cause of death by poisoning only if he could detect poison in the viscera report. This Court noted that it was not in dispute that the death was an unnatural death and held that the deposition of the witness indicated that the death was due to poisoning. It is only the nature of the poison that could not be identified. In view of this, the conviction of the Appellant u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld, there being no charge u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

 In State of Karnataka Vs. K. Yarappa Reddy[SC], the accused and the victim had coffee at a friend’s house. Soon thereafter, the accused launched a murderous assault on the victim with a chopper. It was pleaded by the accused that if they actually had coffee at the friend’s house, it would have shown up in the stomach contents. This Court dismissed the contention as “too puerile”. It was held that there was no need for the doctor to ascertain whether there was coffee in the stomach contents of the victim. This is because the case was not one of suspected death by poisoning. These decisions clearly bring out that 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 u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code or u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code takes place; in a case of an unnatural death inviting Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (read with the presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872) or Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (read with the presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872) as long as there is evidence of poisoning, identification of the poison may not be absolutely necessary.