Judgment :- M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. The appellants are A-1 and A-2 in Sessions Case No. 149 of 1985, on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. They were convicted for the offences under Sections 449 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a Fine of Rs. 50/- in default to undergo R.I. for two weeks, and to undergo imprisonment for life respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The crux of the indictment against the appellants is that on 24-2-1985 at about 11.00 p.m., the appellants trespassed into the arrack shop belonged to the deceased Subbiah Thevar, and assaulted with a broken bottle on his right hand and leg, and after pushing him down on the floor, by crumpling his head and strangulating his neck, caused the death of the deceased. 3. The brief facts are : (a) The scene village is Ramanathapuram, within Pollachi police jurisdiction. The deceased Subbiah Thevar, aged about 60 years was running an unlicensed arrack shop. P.W. 1 Marimuthu and P.W. 2 Mayilsamy had their own tea shop, situated on the western side of the house of the deceased. At the extreme west, there was a 'Murugan Rice Mill', in which P.W. 4 - Subramaniam was working as a driver. (b) The 1st appellant Muniappan belonging to Chengadhurai village, was working in a rice mill belonged to P.W. 10 Kanakaraj, situate at Jamin Muthur village. The 2nd appellant Radhakrishnan is his associate. The 1st appellant, frequently used to come to the unlicensed arrack shop of the deceased, and consume arrack. More often, he did not use to make the payment, and he would create 'galaata' in the arrack shop. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 had the occasions to see 1st appellant often. (c) P.W. 5 Sakthivel was owning a cycle shop at Jamin Muthur village. On 24-2-1985 at about 8.00 p.m., the 1st appellant came to his shop and hired M.O. 1-cycle. The relevant entry made by P.W. 5 in the register is Ex. P5. P.W. 1, at 11.00 p.m., after closing his tea shop, came out of the shop to go for answering the calls of nature. On 24-2-1985 at about 8.00 p.m., the 1st appellant came to his shop and hired M.O. 1-cycle. The relevant entry made by P.W. 5 in the register is Ex. P5. P.W. 1, at 11.00 p.m., after closing his tea shop, came out of the shop to go for answering the calls of nature. At that time, P.W. 1 saw A-1 coming on M.O. 1 cycle along with A-2, who was sitting on the bar and both of them entering into the arrack shop, after putting the M.O. 1 cycle outside the shop. (d) A few minutes later, P.W. 1 came back to his shop. Suddendly, P.W. 1 heard a sound from the arrack shop of the deceased crying P.W. 1 went and informed this to P.W. 2, and both of them went to the arrack shop, in order to see what happen. They found the front door bolted from inside. P.W. 4, who was in the rice mill also came there, on hearing the sound emanating from the shop of the deceased. They found a window opened at the eastern side of the house. With the help of petromax light, which P.W. 1 carried and torch-light which was brought by P.W. 4, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 peeped into the window, and saw the deceased was being assaulted by A-1 by means of a broken bottle - M.O. 3 by scratching on his right elbow, shoulder and right knee. The deceased was trying to escape from the attack. However, A-1 pushed the deceased down, and thereafter both A-1 and A-2 caught hold of the head and dashed it against the floor. On seeing this horrible sight, P.Ws. 1 and 4 shouted at the appellants, and requested them to leave the deceased. But even then, A-1 and A-2 both throttled the neck of the deceased and twisted the same by turning the head to the opposite direction. P.W. 1 rushed to the house of the owner of the building - Krishnasamy Gounder, and informed about the incident. Then on his instructions P.W. 1 came back and asked one Aaran, the servant working under him to scale over the roof and to gain entry into the house. Accordingly, the said Aaran climbed on the roof and removed some tiles on the front side and got into the house. Then on his instructions P.W. 1 came back and asked one Aaran, the servant working under him to scale over the roof and to gain entry into the house. Accordingly, the said Aaran climbed on the roof and removed some tiles on the front side and got into the house. When he gained entry into the house arid unbolted the door, all these witnesses, viz. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and Krishnasamy Gounder, the landlord, went inside the house and found the deceased dead, and inside the house in a separate room, one Gurusamy, aged about 12 years, the son of the deceased was found sleeping. In the right hand side corner, in another room, the witnesses found, the tiles of the middle roof had been removed, and through that way, the appellants escaped from the house. (e) On 25-2-1985, at 3.00 a.m., P.W. 1 came to Poliachi Police Station, and gave Ex. P1 complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W. 8. On the basis of the same, P.W. 8 registered the case in Cr. No. 27 of 1985, for the offence under section 302 I.P.C., and despatched Ex. P1 complaint and Ex. P 14-printed F.I.R., to the Court, as well as to the senior officials. (f) At 4.45 a.m., P.W. 11-Inspector of Police, received the F.I.R., and went to the spot and took up further investigation. He prepared Ex. P18 observation mahazar and Ex. P17 rough sketch. He held inquest between 6.00 a.m., and 12 noon, on the dead body of the deceased and examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and others. Ex. P19 is the inquest report. Then he sent P.W. 6-Head Constable, along with Ex. P6 requisition and dead body of the deceased, for being entrusted the same to Doctor for post-mortem. (g) P.W. 9-Doctor attached to the Government Hospital at Pollachi, commenced post-mortem at 4.50 p.m., on 25-2-1985 and found the following injuries :- "l. Laceration injury over back of right arm. 2. Laceration injury over back of right forearm 3. Multiple abrasion over right side back 4. Abrasion on the back of right thigh 5. Abrasion on the front of the thigh 6. Abrasion on the right cheek 7. Two abrasions over left hand elbow 8. Lacertated injury on the left ear 9. Abrasion on the left back 10. Abrasion on the left eye brow 11. Four abrasions on the back of left thigh 12. Abrasion on the back of right thigh 5. Abrasion on the front of the thigh 6. Abrasion on the right cheek 7. Two abrasions over left hand elbow 8. Lacertated injury on the left ear 9. Abrasion on the left back 10. Abrasion on the left eye brow 11. Four abrasions on the back of left thigh 12. Abrasion over front of neck on both side. On opening the front of neck the hyoid bone was broken (fracture) on its left side and the surrounding area of the bone was contused with haematoma. On internal examination heart chambers filled with clotted blood, lungs : cut section congested, hyoid bone broken on its left side surrounding area of fracture was contused and haematoma present." Ex. P 15 is the post-mortem certificate. Ex. P 16 is the report of the Doctor, in which he opined after the receipt of viscera report, that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. (h) After the post-mortem, P.W. 6 recovered M.O. 4 dothi and M.O. 5-waist cord from the body of the deceased under form No. 95-Ex. P7 and produced the same at the police station. (i) At 5.30 p.m., on 25-2-1985, P.W. 11 recovered M.O. 1-cycle, M.O. 2-Hurricanelamp, M.O. 3-bloodstained broken bottle M.O. 6-bloodstained earth, M.O. 7-sample earth and M.O. 8-(series) broken tiles under Ex. P20 mahazar. He then went to the cycle shop of P.W. 5 and recovered the note book containing Ex. P5-entry relating to the hiring of the cycle to A-1, under Ex. P21 mahazar. (j) P.W. 11, thereafter sent the M.Os. along with Ex. P8 requisition to the Court, for the M.Os. to be sent for forensic laboratory. P.W. 7-Head Clerk of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Pollachi, sent these M.Os., with the covering letter (Ex. P9) of the Magistrate, to the forensic laboratory. Ex. P10 is the chemical analyst's report and Ex. P11 is the serologist's report. (k) On 28-2-1985, P.W. 12, Inspector of Police, the successor of P.W. 11, took up further investigation. P.W. 7-Head Clerk of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Pollachi, sent these M.Os., with the covering letter (Ex. P9) of the Magistrate, to the forensic laboratory. Ex. P10 is the chemical analyst's report and Ex. P11 is the serologist's report. (k) On 28-2-1985, P.W. 12, Inspector of Police, the successor of P.W. 11, took up further investigation. On 8-3-1985, at about 11.00 a.m., A-1 and A-2 went to the rice mill in Jamin Muthur village and met P.W. 10, under whom A-1 was working, and confessed to P.W. 10, that on 24-2-1985 night, when they went and consumed arrack in the shop of the deceased, in the course of the wordy quarrel they murdered the deceased Subbiah Thevar, and then escaped. They also requested P.W. 10 to produce them to the police station and arranged to see that they are arrested and produced before the Court, without any ill-treatment at the hands of police. Therefore, at about 3.00 p.m., P.W. 10-took both the appellants, and produced before P.W. 12-Inspector of Police. (l) After interrogation, P.W. 12 arrested the appellants and sent them for judicial custody. Since the 2nd appellant was in a mood to give a statement, under section 164 Cr.P.C., P.W. 12, Inspector of Police sent requisition to the Magistrate to record his confession statement. He also sent Ex. P2 on 12-3-1985, to Chief Judicial Magistrate, requesting for arranging to hold the identification, parade. (m) P.W. 3-Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet, in pursuance of the direction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, sent Ex. P3-letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sub-Jail, Pollachi, to arrange for the production of the appellants 1 and 2 to enable the Magistrate for holding the identification parade. The identification parade was held on 20-3-1985 at about 2.30 p.m. P.Ws. 1 and 2 identified the 2nd appellant. However, they could not identify the first appellant. Ex. P4 is the proceedings of the identification parade. After completing the investigation, P.W. 12, on 8-5-1985, filed the charge sheet against the appellants for the offences under sections 449 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., before the committal Court. 4. On being committed, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charges against the appellants as referred above, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined on its side P.Ws. 1 to 12, filed Exs. P1 to P21 and marked M.Os. 1 to 8. 4. On being committed, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charges against the appellants as referred above, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined on its side P.Ws. 1 to 12, filed Exs. P1 to P21 and marked M.Os. 1 to 8. On the side of defence Exs, D1 to D4 were marked. 5. After the evidence was over, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating materials brought on record against them in evidence, the appellants said that they were innocent, and they did not commit any offence whatsoever. A-1 further stated that he was falsely implicated, since his father was enimically disposed of towards Krishnasamy Gounder, who was the landlord of the deceased. A-2 stated that he belonged to D.M.K. party, and he was implicated falsely in this case at the instance of one Nekamam Kandasamy, Ex. M.L.A., of the opposite political party viz. ALADMK. He would further state that he was shown at the sub-jail to the witnesses one week prior to the identification parade, as the sub-jail is situate very near to the police station. 6. On termination of trial, after apprisal of the evidence, oral and documentary produced by the prosecution and defence coupled with the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial Court found the accused guilty and dealt with them as referred above. Aggrieved over this verdict, the appellants have come forward with this appeal, challenging the convictions and sentences imposed on them. 7. Mr. K. Asokan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, while taking us through the entire evidence, contended that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond doubt by adducing the acceptable materials. He would also point out various serious infirmities, which would affect the core of the prosecution. 8. Per contra, Mr. S. Anbazhagan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by countering the above submissions, submitted that the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 is sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence, and the evidence relating to the extra-judicial confession tendered by P.W. 10. In short, the submission by the Addl. Public Prosecutor is that the trial Court has correctly awarded the sentence, by imposing the conviction, and the same need not be interfered with, as there is no valid reason. 9. In short, the submission by the Addl. Public Prosecutor is that the trial Court has correctly awarded the sentence, by imposing the conviction, and the same need not be interfered with, as there is no valid reason. 9. This Court while carefully considering the submissions made by the respective counsel, and the materials adduced by the prosecution and the defence, could see, that there are inherent improbabilities and serious infirmities, which would cut at the root of the prosecution bringing the entire edifice of the construction built up by the prosecution into debris. No-doubt, it is true, that there are three witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4, to speak about the occurrence, as eye-witnesses. The evidence of P.W. 5 also would show that M.O. 1 cycle which was kept opposite to the house of the deceased was hired by A-1 on the earlier day. The evidence of P.W. 10 also would make it clear, that the extra-judicial confession was made by these accused to him on 8-3-1985, and on their request the accused were produced before P.W. 12, who subsequently arrested the accused. Further more, from the spot, P.W. 11-Inspector of Police recovered broken bottle and other things along with the tiles removed by both, viz. One Aaran, servant working under P.W. 1, and by the accused who escaped through the roof in the middle hall of the house of the deceased. But the question is, whether these materials could be accepted by the Court in order to base conviction against the appellants ? Our answer is emphatic 'no'. 10. Let us analyse the various infirmities, which made us to come to the conclusion, that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond doubt, one by one. (a) It is monstrous to note that even though it is the case of the prosecution, that both P.Ws. 1 and 2 knew A-1 very well, in the identification parade conducted by P.W. 3-Judicial Magistrate, P.Ws. 1 and 2 could not identify A-1. P.W. 1 would go to the extent of saying that he knew A-1 who belong to Chengathurai village, and often used to come to the arrack shop situate nearer to his shop, and quarrelled with the deceased, due to his non-payment of money. 1 and 2 could not identify A-1. P.W. 1 would go to the extent of saying that he knew A-1 who belong to Chengathurai village, and often used to come to the arrack shop situate nearer to his shop, and quarrelled with the deceased, due to his non-payment of money. He would also admit that he was summoned by the Magistrate, to Pollachi sub-jail, after 10 or 15 days subsequent to the occurrence, in order to identify A-1 and A-2. He would also specifically admit in his cross-examination that he did not identify A-1 in the identification parade. P.W. 2-Mayilsamy, a neighbour, also would say that he already knew A-1, since he was a regular customer, who often come to the arrack shop of the deceased to consume arrack. He also would admit in his cross-examination that he did not identify A-1. P.W. 3, Judicial Magistrate would state in his cross-examination, that he made an endorsement in Ex. P4-identification proceedings, that P.Ws. 1 and 2 could not identify A-1. Furthermore, a reading of Ex. P4 would show that five times, A-1 was made to stand in the parade, and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not identify A-1 on any one of the occasions. P.W. 12, Inspector of Police also would admit that the identification parade was held by P.W. 3, on his requisition, to identify the accused in the case by the witnesses, and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not able to identify A-1 in the parade as recorded in Ex. P4. It is not understandable, as to why the identification parade was conducted in respect of A-1, even though the case of the prosecution is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 knew the accused very well. But a reading of Ex. P2, the requisition sent by P.W. 12, would go to show that he requested for identification parade only in respect of A-2. Even then, P.W. 3-Magistrate, by mistake under Ex. P3 directed the Superintendent of sub-jail, Pollachi to produce both A-1 and A-2 to have the identification parade on 20-3-1985. But despite this, P.W. 12, without referring to the above mistake, would admit in his cross-examination that parade was held on his requisition by P.W. 3, for identifying both the accused. Even then, P.W. 3-Magistrate, by mistake under Ex. P3 directed the Superintendent of sub-jail, Pollachi to produce both A-1 and A-2 to have the identification parade on 20-3-1985. But despite this, P.W. 12, without referring to the above mistake, would admit in his cross-examination that parade was held on his requisition by P.W. 3, for identifying both the accused. These things would show that even though A-1 is alleged to be a known person to P.W. 1, the prosecution was not able to establish the identity of A-1, though he was produced in the parade. (b) It is true that under Ex. P4, the identification proceedings, A-2 has been identified by P.Ws. 1 and 2, on all the five occasions in the parade conducted on 20-3-1985. It is pertinent to note, that, as per the F.I.R., A-2 was seen sitting in the cycle bar in front of A-1 at about 11.00 p.m., on 24-2-1985, when A-1 and A-2 were coming towards the arrack shop of the deceased. In the F.I.R., there are no particulars about the identifiable features as regards A-2. P.W. 2 admits that he did not give any special features or any particulars about A-2, or his age, either to the police or to the Magistrate. Apart from this, even according to P.W. 1, there is no electricity on that particular night. So, there is no possibility for P.W. 1, to see A-2, especially when there are no electric lights in the street or in the room. P.W. 2 would also admit that when he was informed by P.W. 1 about the incident, there was no electric light and the entire village fell in darkness [Vernacular Matter Omitted.] So, in these circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 1 to the effect that he saw A-1 along with A-2, while they were coming on a cycle, cannot be said to be an acceptable one. Furthermore, according to prosecution, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 saw the accused through the window, by means of petromax-light. But it is seen from the evidence of these witnesses, that inside the hall, where the occurrence had taken place, one hurricane light found burning. So, it is not known as to why P.Ws. Furthermore, according to prosecution, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 saw the accused through the window, by means of petromax-light. But it is seen from the evidence of these witnesses, that inside the hall, where the occurrence had taken place, one hurricane light found burning. So, it is not known as to why P.Ws. 1 and 2 would say that with the petromax-light that they carried in their hands outside the house they could be able to see the identity of A-2, especially when there is no evidence either in the F.I.R., or in the deposition about the special features of A-2. (c) In the light of these things, we have to see, whether these witnesses, viz. P.Ws. 1 and 2 identified A-2 correctly in the identification parade conducted by P.W. 3-Magistrate. It is the case of the prosecution that A-1 and A-2 were arrested on 8-3-1985. The requisition was sent by P.W. 12, for conducting identification parade on 15-3-1985. On 20-3-1985, the identification parade was held. So, admittedly between 8-3-1985 and 20-3-1985, the accused, after they were remanded by the Court, were kept in sub-jail, which is situate next to the police station in the same compound. P.W. 7, Court Clerk would admit that Sub-Jail, Court, Taluk Police station and Tahsildar office, all situate in one and the same place. P.W. 12 also admits that Sub-Jail is situate next to the police-station in the, same place. In the light of this evidence, the testimony of P.W. 3, Magistrate would become quite relevant. (d) In his cross-examination, P.W. 3 admitted that after the identification, A-2 complained to him, that he was shown by the police to the witnesses, even before the identification parade was held. Furthermore, A-2 also complained to P.W. 3-Magistrate, that he was ill-treated by the Sub-Inspector of Police, and compelled to give statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., and that when he was produced before the Magistrate, he did not give any such confession. Even in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., A-2 had stated that he was shown to the witnesses even prior to the identification parade. In these circumstances, we are not able to persuade ourselves to held that the evidence relating to the identity of A-2 has been properly established. Besides this, P.W. 10 would also admit that though A-2 accompanied A-1, he had not given any extra-judicial confession to him. In these circumstances, we are not able to persuade ourselves to held that the evidence relating to the identity of A-2 has been properly established. Besides this, P.W. 10 would also admit that though A-2 accompanied A-1, he had not given any extra-judicial confession to him. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no acceptable material to conclude that A-2 also participated in the crime, as identity has not been properly established. (e) The next infirmity is the unexplained long delay in the registration of F.I.R. It is argued by counsel for the appellants, that F.I.R., could not have been prepared at 3.00 a.m., at pollachi police station, as alleged by the prosecution, and it must have been come into existence long after the occurrence. According to P.W. 1. the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 p.m., on 24-2-1985, and then he went to Pollachi Police Station, which is situate at a distance of 9 miles and gave Ex. P1-complaint to P.W. 8-Sub-Inspector of Police at 3.00 a.m., on 25-2-1985. It is also seen from his evidence that he went in a cycle to go to Police Station. P.W. 4-Subramaniam, who was working as a Driver in 'Murugan rice mill', would admit that telephone facilities are available in the village, particularly in the houses of one Iyyasamy Gounder, Senthil Gounder and at Bank of Madura. It is also admitted by him that Pollachi Police Station also had telephone facility. So, it is not known as to why no attempt was made by Krishnasamy Gounder, the landlord, to inform the incident over phone to the police, even during the night time at 11.00 p.m. itself. (f) P.W. 7-Court clerk would say that the Court is situated near the police station and the Magistrate also is residing in a house at a distance of 1 1/2 K.Ms. However, P.W. 8 had made a faint attempt to explain the delay, by saying that since the in-charge Magistrate was at Udumalpet, he sent the F.I.R., which was registered at 3.00 a.m., to the Udumalpet Magistrate. He would also admit that F.I.R., has been received by the Magistrate on 25-2-1985 at about 6.00 p.m. In the cross-examination, he said that will take one hour to reach Udumalpet from Pollachi. He would further admit that for every 30 minutes, there is a bus from Pollachi to Udumalpet. He would also admit that F.I.R., has been received by the Magistrate on 25-2-1985 at about 6.00 p.m. In the cross-examination, he said that will take one hour to reach Udumalpet from Pollachi. He would further admit that for every 30 minutes, there is a bus from Pollachi to Udumalpet. So, as it is, there is no explanation, as to why the F.I.R., which has been allegedly prepared at 3.00 a.m., on 25-2-1985, has reached the Magistrate after 15 hours delay. In fact the suggestion had been made to P.W. 8, that the F.I.R., was prepared only in the afternoon of 25-2-1985 at the spot, and that was why the F.I.R., had reached the Court at 6.00 p.m. It is the case of the defence, that only on 25-2-1985, since the door of the house of the deceased was found locked, on suspicion, the witnesses gained entry into the said house, after removing the tiles and found the deceased dead, and thereafter on receipt of intimation, the police came and fabricated the F.I.R., in the afternoon of 25-2-1985, by implicating A-1 and A-2, at the instance of local M.L.A., who belongs to the opposite political party. Of-course these suggestions had been denied. However, the failure to explain the long delay would make this Court to feel that the F.I.R., in this case would not have been prepared at 3.00 a.m., as alleged by the prosecution. So, as the Apex Court often held, that when the F.I.R., is held to be fabricated, it is not safe to accept the prosecution case, even though there are some eye-witnesses, especially when the testimony of these witnesses suffers from inherent improbabilities. (g) Another dismal feature in this case as pointed out by learned counsel is the failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the time of death. According to prosecution, the death was at 11.00 p.m., on 24-2-1985. The post-mortem was commenced at 4.30 p.m., on 25-2-1985. According to Doctor-P.W. 9, injury No. 12 was fatal. Though he would state that the death would have been caused 17 to 19 hours prior to post-mortem, he would admit in his cross-examination, that he could not fix the exact time of death of the deceased from external injury No. 12 and the corresponding internal injuries as stated in Ex. P15 post-mortem certificate, as per his report-Ex. P16. Though he would state that the death would have been caused 17 to 19 hours prior to post-mortem, he would admit in his cross-examination, that he could not fix the exact time of death of the deceased from external injury No. 12 and the corresponding internal injuries as stated in Ex. P15 post-mortem certificate, as per his report-Ex. P16. P.W. 9, while commencing post-mortem, found rigor mortis passed off. P.W. 11-Inspector of Police, who went to the spot at 4.45 p.m., and prepared Ex. P18-observation mahazar would state that [Vernacular Matter Omitted.] He would also state in his evidence that [Vernacular Matter Omitted.] So, rigor merits passed off, even at 6.00 a.m., on 25-2-1985, when P.W. 11-Inspector of Police visited the spot. Whatever it is, admittedly, rigor mortis was not present at the time of post-mortem, which was conducted 18 hours after the death, as alleged by the prosecution. (h) In order substantiate this submission, learned counsel for the appellants would point out some portions at page 171, in the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, which are as follows :- "Rigor mortis generally occurs, whilst the body is cooling ..... Owing to the setting in of rigor mortis all the muscles of the body become stiff, hard, opaque and contracted, but they do not alter the position of body or limb ........ Regor mortis first appears in the involuntary muscles, and then in the volunatry ........ In the voluntary muscles rigor mortis follows a definite course. It first occurs in the muscles of the eyelids, next in the muscles of the back of the neck and lower jaw, then in those of the front of the neck, face, chest and upper extremities, and lastly extends downwards to the muscles of the abdomen and lower extremities. last to be affected are the small muscles of the fingers and toes. It passes off in the same sequence ..... Time of onset :- This varies greatly in different cases, but the average period of its onset may be regarded as three to six hours after death in temperate climates, and it may take two to three hours to develop. In India, it usually commences in one to two hours after death. Duration :- In temperate regions, rigor mortis usually lasts for two to three days. In India, it usually commences in one to two hours after death. Duration :- In temperate regions, rigor mortis usually lasts for two to three days. In Northern India, the usual duration of rigor mortis is twenty-four to forty-eight hours in winter and eighteen to thirty-six hours in summer. According to the investigations of Mackenzie, in Calcutta the average duration is nineteen hours and twelve minutes, the shortest period being three hours, and the longest forty hours ...... In general, rigor moris sets in 1 to 2 hours after death is well developed from head to foot in about 12 hours, is maintained for about 12 hours and passes off in about 12 hours. If on examination the body is stiff, the head cannot be fixed towards the chest then in all probability the death might have occurred 6-12 hours or more before the time of examination." A reading of this paragraph would indicate that it would take generally 36 hours, after death, for passing off the rigor mortis. But in the instant case, Doctor would say that rigor mortis passed off, even on the eighteenth hour. It is also to be noted that Doctor was not able to say the exact time of death, with reference to the fatal injury. So, in these circumstances, we are not able to accept the prosecution case, regarding the time of death also. 11. That apart, there are other suspicious feature as found in the evidence of the witnesses, which are as follows :- (i) One Gurusamy, son of the deceased was admittedly sleeping inside the room, when the occurrence had taken place. It is the case of the prosecution, that at the time of occurrence, the son of deceased, who was aged about 12 or 14 years, was sleeping inside the room, and P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 shouted at the accused, they also raised their voice by calling Gurusamy in the process of waking up. Despite this shouting and other annoyance, the case of the prosecution is that the said Gurusamy did not wake up, which the quite artificial. P.W. 1 admits that when they raised cue and cry, there were about 7 or 8 persons from the neighbouring houses who came out and shouted. The servant of P.W. 1, by climbing upon the roof, removed the tiles and jumbed into the house. P.W. 1 admits that when they raised cue and cry, there were about 7 or 8 persons from the neighbouring houses who came out and shouted. The servant of P.W. 1, by climbing upon the roof, removed the tiles and jumbed into the house. It is also the case of the prosecution, that the accused went inside another room and removed the tiles, through which they escaped. So it is not believable to say that in spite of these happenings, the son of the deceased who was aged about 12 years did not wake up from his bed. (ii) Furthermore, P.W. 1 would admit in his cross-examination, that he stated in the F.I.R., that he tried to wake him up by calling 'Gurusamy', while standing outside the house of the deceased. But no such details are found in the F.I.R. Whatever it is, even assuming that this boy aged about 12 years was sleeping inside the room, at the time of occurrence, the prosecution could have examined him, to show that he was available at that time. This was not done. But, suppose if that witness had been examined, who is a material witness, he would have given some details about the incident or at least he would have said under what circumstances he slept deeply. So, the non-examination of the material witness also would create a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. (iii) The next infirmity is the evidence of P.W. 10, with reference to the extra-judicial confession. P.W. 10, while deposing evidence in Court would state, that the accused confessed, that they committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating him. P.W. 10 was examined by the Magistrate, under section 164 Cr.P.C., even before the charge-sheet was filed. That document was marked by the defence as Exs. D3 and D4. A perusal of the said statement would make it clear that the statement given by P.W. 10, before the Magistrate is quite contrary to his deposition given before the trial Court. In Ex. D4, it is stated by P.W. 10, as if the accused told him that the deceased was done to death by means of a bottle. Furthermore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 would say that they heard the sound of bottle being broken. P.W. 11 admittedly did not recover any broken bottle pieces from the spot. In Ex. D4, it is stated by P.W. 10, as if the accused told him that the deceased was done to death by means of a bottle. Furthermore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 would say that they heard the sound of bottle being broken. P.W. 11 admittedly did not recover any broken bottle pieces from the spot. It is also admitted by P.W. 11, that there was no glass or tumblers or any bottle containing arrack. So, as it is, the prosecution has also not established that the house of the deceased was used as an unlicensed arrack shop for consuming arrack. (iv) The last, but not the least dismal feature that we could see is the recovery mahazar-Ex. P20, from which it could be seen that some finger prints have been taken from M.O. 1 cycle and M.O. 3 broken bottle. But it is not known whether these finger prints were sent to finger print expert and any result received therefor, in order to establish that the accused had participated in the commission of crime. It is also not made known through the evidence of P.W. 12, Inspector of Police, as to how the finger prints were taken, and the details about the finger prints taken from the accused in order to enable the Expert to compare the same. So, in view of the above serious infirmities we are not able to come to the conclusion, that the prosecution proved its case beyond doubt. As such, the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 12. In view of the foregoing analysis, the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants by the lower Court are not valid in law, as the reasonings given by the Court below are not proper and sound. 13. In the result, the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants are set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand cancelled. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.