JUDGMENT : R. SUBBIAH, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/sole accused as against the conviction and sentence, dated 19.02.2016, made in S.C.No.34 of 2012 by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder: Conviction U/s. Sentence Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 449 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 394 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate their case, examined PWs.1 to PW21 and marked Exs.P1 to P17 and produced MOs.1 to 14. On the side of the accused, no one was examined. However, only one document was marked as Ex.D1. 4. The case of the prosecution, as put forth by its witnesses, is consciously narrated below: (a) PW1 - Pichaiyah, who is the defacto complainant and the deceased Shanmugathai, were neighbours. On 10.02.2011 at 12.15 p.m., while PW1 was in his house, he heard the hue and cry raised by Shanmugathai. Hence, he immediately rushed to the house of the deceased, where he found the accused attacking the deceased with a small sword at the kitchen room and when the deceased warded off the same, she sustained injury in a hand and the said sword had broken into two pieces. Then, suddenly, the accused snatched the gold chain of the deceased and took a knife, which was lying in the kitchen, and stabbed the deceased on the cheek and chest indiscriminately. (b) On seeing this, when PW1 made an attempt to prevent the accused from attacking the deceased, the accused shouted at PW1 and took a vegetable cutter (Aruvamanai) and attacked PW1 on the left cheek, upper lip, lower lip and chest indiscriminately. When PW1 raised alarm, his wife and daughter viz., PW3 and PW4, Muthukumar (PW5), Vijayakumar (PW6) and one Mariyappan(PW9) came to the place of occurrence. When PW1 raised alarm, his wife and daughter viz., PW3 and PW4, Muthukumar (PW5), Vijayakumar (PW6) and one Mariyappan(PW9) came to the place of occurrence. When PW9 made an attempt to catch the accused by pulling his lungi, the accused, leaving his lungi, escaped from the clutches of PW9 and ran away from the spot with underwear and gold chain snatched from the deceased. (c) Immediately, at about 12.45 p.m., through 108 ambulance, PW1 was taken to the Government Hospital at Shencottah, where PW1 had stated to PW17 - Dr.Thamilarasan that he was attacked by a known person. Then, PW17 admitted PW1 in the hospital and gave an intimation to the Police. PW13 - Dr.Nancy Dora took CT scan on the facial bone of PW1. PW17 has found the following injuries on the body of PW1: "(1) Laceration - Clear cut 100 ml 10 x 2 x 1 over scalp. (2) Laceration 6 x 2 x 1 cm over left side of nose. (3) Laceration 6 x 2 x 1 cm above upper lip. (4) Laceration 4 x 1 x 1 cm below chin. (5) Laceration 4 x 1 x 1 cm over front of left side of chest." The Accident Register copy of PW1 is marked as Ex.P12. PW17 has given his opinion that the injury Nos.1 to 4 are simple injuries and Injury No.5 is grievous injury. (d) On receipt of intimation from the hospital, PW20 - the then Sub Inspector of Police, rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1, which is marked as Ex.P1 - complaint. On the basis of Ex.P1, PW20 registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2011 under Sections 449, 392 r/w 394, 302 and 307 IPC, which is marked as Ex.P15 and forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Shencottah through a Head Constable - PW18 and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police - PW21. (e) PW21 took up the investigation at 2.15 p.m., proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P14 and rough sketch (Ex.P15) in the presence of PW15 and one Vairamuthu. Then, PW21 recovered MOs.1 to 5 from the place of occurrence, in the presence of witnesses PW15 and Vairamuthu. (e) PW21 took up the investigation at 2.15 p.m., proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P14 and rough sketch (Ex.P15) in the presence of PW15 and one Vairamuthu. Then, PW21 recovered MOs.1 to 5 from the place of occurrence, in the presence of witnesses PW15 and Vairamuthu. Thereafter, PW21 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatars and prepared inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P17, recovered bloodstained clothes and forwarded the dead body to the hospital with a requisition letter to conduct postmortem. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses. (f) On receipt of requisition from PW21, PW17, on the same day at 4.45 p.m., conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: "External Injuries: (1) Incised wound 3 x 0.5 x 2 cm right cheek. (2) Incised wound 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm right cheek. (3) Incised wound 4 x 0.5 x 1 cm right cheek. (4) Incised wound 3.5 x 2 x 5 cm above medial end of right clancle. (5) Lacerated wound 5 x 2 x 2 cm above right wrist." Ex.P14 is the Postmortem Certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of heamorrhage shock due to injury to major blood vessels. (g) On the same day ie. on 10.02.2011 at 5.30 p.m., PW21 arrested the accused at Thatco Nagar near Esakkiamman Temple. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession in the presence of PW14 - VAO, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the gold chain. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced bloodstained gold chain - MO.6. PW21 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects under Form 95 to the Court. At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examinations through Court. The chemical examination report (Ex.A4) and serological report (Ex.A5) disclosed that there are human blood of “A” group on most of the material objects, including sword pieces, knife and Lungi, etc. (h) PW21, during the course of investigation, collected the medical records and examined PW17 and few more witnesses, and recorded their statements. The chemical examination report (Ex.A4) and serological report (Ex.A5) disclosed that there are human blood of “A” group on most of the material objects, including sword pieces, knife and Lungi, etc. (h) PW21, during the course of investigation, collected the medical records and examined PW17 and few more witnesses, and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed as many as four charges against the accused. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. However, he did not choose to examine any witnesses. On his side, only a arrest memo and proforma for screening of prisoners on admission to jail was marked as Ex.D1. 6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated supra. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has come up with this appeal. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that there are lot of contradictions in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and those contradictions are affecting the root of the case. The contradictions would go to prove that the occurrence would not have taken place at 12.15 p.m., as put forth by the prosecution and that PWs.2 to 6 might not have been present at the place of occurrence, as claimed by them in their evidences. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected. 8. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the appellant took this Court through the evidences and documents and submitted as follows: (a) It is the case of the prosecution that on hearing the alarm of raised by the deceased, PW1, who is the neighbour, rushed to the place of occurrence viz., house of the deceased and saw the accused attacking the deceased with a small sword, snatching the gold chain of the deceased and stabbing the deceased with a knife. On seeing PW1, the accused shouted at him and attacked him also with a vegetable cutter (Aruvamanai) and thereafter, on hearing the alarm of PW1, PWs.2 to 9 came to the place of occurrence. On seeing PW1, the accused shouted at him and attacked him also with a vegetable cutter (Aruvamanai) and thereafter, on hearing the alarm of PW1, PWs.2 to 9 came to the place of occurrence. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the other witnesses came to the place of occurrence, PWs.2 to 6 have not spoken about the overtact caused by the accused on the deceased. But, they have spoken only about the injury caused by the accused on PW1. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 10.02.2011 at 12.15 p.m., PW1 sustained injury along with the deceased Shanmugathai and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Shencottah, through 108 ambulance by PW3, and PW17 treated PW1 at 12.45. p.m. Had the other witnesses been present in the place of occurrence, definitely, they would have accompanied PW1. But, in the Accident Register Copy, the name of the accompanied person has not been mentioned. (b) That apart, PW1, at the initial stage, before PW17 has stated that he was attacked by "unknown person" and that is the reason why, the word "Unknown" has been noted down in the A.R. copy by PW17. But, at a later point of time, the letters "Un" was purposefully scored out. Further, PW1 has stated to PW17 that he was attacked at home. But, he has not specifically stated as to whether it was his home or the home of the deceased. The above facts would clearly go to show that the occurrence has not happened as projected by the prosecution. (c) The learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Police has arrested the accused between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m., whereas PW14 - Village Administrative Officer has stated that the accused was arrested at 5.30 p.m. at Thatco Nagar near Esakkiamman Temple with underwear and bloodstained shirt. According to the learned senior counsel, if the evidence of PW9 is believed, then the evidence of PW14 has to be rejected. Since there is a contradiction with respect to the arrest of the accused, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. (d) It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that there is a delay of 5-1/2 hours in reaching the FIR to the learned Magistrate. Since there is a contradiction with respect to the arrest of the accused, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. (d) It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that there is a delay of 5-1/2 hours in reaching the FIR to the learned Magistrate. According to the learned senior counsel, though PW20 has stated that he registered the case at 1.45 p.m. and forwarded the FIR through PW18 to the learned Magistrate, the FIR has reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 07.30 p.m. The said delay was not properly explained and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. (e) The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in the postmortem report, PW17 has stated that the deceased has sustained three cut injuries on the cheek and one stab injury on the upper part of the right chest and a lacerated injury on the wrist. All the injuries are not on the vital part to cause instantaneous death, whereas the case of the prosecution is that the deceased instantaneously died, which cannot be believed. (f) Inviting the attention of this Court to the Postmortem certificate, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that PW17, who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, has specifically stated that rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. The occurrence had taken place at 12.15 p.m. The postmortem was conducted at 4.45 p.m. There is no chance for the presence of rigor mortis in all the four limbs within 4.30 hours. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrence might not have occurred, as projected by the prosecution and the case was cooked up at every stage and hence, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected and consequently, this appeal may be allowed. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that it is a case of murder for gain. PW1 has clearly stated that on hearing the alarm of the deceased, he went to the house of the deceased and saw the accused attacking and stabbing the deceased and also snatching the gold chain of the deceased. On seeing PW1, the accused attacked PW1 also. Thus, PW1 has categorically stated about the overtact of the accused on the deceased and also on him. On seeing PW1, the accused attacked PW1 also. Thus, PW1 has categorically stated about the overtact of the accused on the deceased and also on him. More over PW2, who is the relative of the deceased, came to the place of occurrence and he accompanied PW1 in the ambulance. He has also attested in the complaint Ex.P1. Further, PW3 and PW4 who are the wife and daughter of PW1 have stated about the overtact of the accused on PW1. PW5 and PW6 are neighbours and on hearing the hue and cry of PW1, they came to the place of occurrence. They have also corroborated the evidences of PW1, PW3 and PW4. PW9 has clearly stated in his evidence that he made an attempt to catch hold of the accused by pulling down the Lungi of the accused, but he escaped from his clutches, leaving the Lungi. PW8 has stated that he saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. PW14 - VAO has clearly spoken about the arrest of the accused, confession statement given by the accused and recovery of gold chain. Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved the case by cogent and convincing evidences. Under such circumstances, no infirmity can be found on the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. According to the prosecution, it is a case of murder for gain. PW1 is the injured eyewitness to the murder of the deceased by the accused. PWs.3 to 6, 8 and 9 are eyewitnesses to the attack made on PW1 by the accused. According to the eyewitnesses, the accused is a known person, as he was doing mason work in the locality. More over, the Police had also arrested the accused on the same day. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused. With regard to the overact of the accused on the deceased is concerned, PW1, who is the neighbour of the deceased, has categorically stated that on hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, he rushed to the house of the deceased and saw the accused attacking and stabbing the deceased, and also snatching the gold chain from the accused. With regard to the overact of the accused on the deceased is concerned, PW1, who is the neighbour of the deceased, has categorically stated that on hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, he rushed to the house of the deceased and saw the accused attacking and stabbing the deceased, and also snatching the gold chain from the accused. On seeing him, the accused shouted at him and also attacked him on the cheek, lower lip, upper lip and right chest by using vegetable cutter (Aruvamanai). On hearing the alarm raised by PW1, PWs.3 to 6 came to the place of occurrence and saw the accused attacking PW1 with vegetable cutter (Aruvamanai). PW8 has clearly stated that he saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. PW9 has categorically stated that when he attempted to catch the accused by pulling down the lungi of the accused, he escaped from his clutches, leaving the lungi. Thus, based on the above evidences and also the related documents, the prosecution has clinchingly proved that it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased and also caused injuries to PW1 and also snatched the chain of the deceased. 12. Now, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that though it is stated that PW1 was accompanied by PW2 and PW3 to the hospital, in the AR copy, the name of the accompanied person has not been mentioned. From the perusal of Ex.P12, it reveals that PW1 was brought by 108 ambulance. PW2 has given categorical evidence that he along with PW3 and PW4 took PW1 to the Government hospital through 108 ambulance. PW3 and PW4have corroborated the version of PW2. More over, PW2 had put his signature in Ex.P1 - Complaint, which was written by PW20 at the hospital. Thus, it is clearly proved by the prosecution that PW2 to PW4 had accompanied PW1 to the hospital. Merely because of the omission of the name of the accompanied person in the AR copy, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. 13. The next contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that PW1 initially stated to PW17 that he was attacked by unknown person and hence, PW17 noted down the word "unknown person" in the AR copy. But, the letters "Un" was purposefully scored out, at a later point of time. 13. The next contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that PW1 initially stated to PW17 that he was attacked by unknown person and hence, PW17 noted down the word "unknown person" in the AR copy. But, the letters "Un" was purposefully scored out, at a later point of time. A perusal of Ex.P12 would go to show that as it is stated by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, in the word "Unknown", the letters "Un" was scored out. But, PW17 has categorically stated in his evidence that since the accompanied person had stated that PW1 was attacked by unknown person, he noted down the word "unknown person". But, subsequently, when PW1 stated that he was attacked by a known person, he, immediately, scored out the letters "Un" from the word "Unknown". The above explanation offered by PW17 is acceptable. The same does not create any doubt in the mind of the Court. Moreover, in the complaint itself, PW1 has stated the name of the accused, which would further support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the above contention of the learned senior counsel is rejected. 14. The another submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that PW1, at the first instance, has informed to PW17 that he was assaulted by a young known person with a vegetable cutter while at home and the same has been mentioned in the AR copy. But, it is not specifically mentioned as to which home he was attacked ie., whether it was his home or the home of the deceased and the same creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. Considering the categorical evidences of the eyewitnesses, this Court is of the view that the above submission made by the learned senior counsel, based on some entries made in the Accident Register - Ex.P12, is not sufficient enough to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. 15. The yet another submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that PW9 has stated that the accused was arrested on the same day between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m,. whereas PW14 has stated that the accused was arrested on the same day at 05.30 p.m. Therefore, the arrest of the accused cannot be believed. Admittedly, PW9 is not a witness to the arrest and PW14 is the witness to the arrest. whereas PW14 has stated that the accused was arrested on the same day at 05.30 p.m. Therefore, the arrest of the accused cannot be believed. Admittedly, PW9 is not a witness to the arrest and PW14 is the witness to the arrest. Therefore, no weightage could be given to the evidence of PW9. Thus, this contention is also rejected. 16. The next submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that there is a delay of 5.30 hours in reaching the FIR to the hands of the learned Magistrate and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to PW20 - the then Sub Inspector of Police, he had registered the complaint at 1.45 p.m. in Crime No.9 of 2011. The FIR was forwarded to the learned Magistrate Court through PW18 - Head Constable. According to PW18, he received the FIR at 2.10 p.m. and handed over the same to the learned Magistrate, Shencottah. He has not specifically stated about the time of handing over the FIR to the learned Magistrate. But, in the FIR, the learned Magistrate mentioned the time of receiving the FIR as 7.30 p.m. Thus, there is a delay of 5.30 hours in reaching the FIR to the learned Magistrate. But, the defence has not raised any question with regard to the same. Thus, there was no obligation on the part of the prosecution to explain the same. In this regard, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Daud Khan reported in (2016) 2 SCC 607 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any question having been asked to the officer, who could have given an answer, namely, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution in this regard, nor can it be held that the delay in receipt of the special report by the Magistrate is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Based on the same, this contention is rejected. 17. The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Based on the same, this contention is rejected. 17. The next contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that except the injury No.4, other injuries are not on the vital part of the body of the deceased and therefore, the deceased would not have died instantaneously. Hence, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. The deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of death. The injury No.4 is the stab injury on the right chest. According to PW17, the deceased appeared to have died of heamorrhage shock due to injury on the major blood vessels. Admittedly, the defence has not put any question in this regard before PW17. It cannot be disputed that even making a shock on a person is sufficient enough to cause death. In this case, the accused indiscriminately attacked the deceased and stabbed the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased and indiscriminate attack made by the accused on the deceased and also considering the opinion of PW17 that the deceased would appear to have died of heamorrhage shock due to injury on the major blood vessels, this Court is of the view that the above contention raised by the learned senior counsel cannot be given much importance. 18. The last contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the doctor - PW17, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, opined that rigor mortis was present on all the four limbs. According to the learned senior counsel, the rigor mortis would not have present in all the four limbs within 4.30 hours of death and therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. 19. Before going into the above question, this Court is inclined to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baso Prasad and others Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 65, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos.20 to 22 as follows: "20. In 'Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology', 21st Edn., at page 171, it is stated : "Rigor mortis generally occurs, while the body is cooling. State of Bihar, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 65, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos.20 to 22 as follows: "20. In 'Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology', 21st Edn., at page 171, it is stated : "Rigor mortis generally occurs, while the body is cooling. It is in no way connected with the nervous system, and it develops even in paralyzed limbs, provided the paralyzed muscle tissues have not suffered much in nutrition. It is retarded by perfusion with normal saline. 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. A joint rendered stiff and rigid after death, if flexed forcibly by mechanical violence, will remain supple and flaccid, but will not return to its original position after the force is withdrawn; whereas a joint contracted during life in cases of hysteria or catalepsy will return to the same condition after the force is taken away. Rigor mortis first appears in the involuntary muscles, and then in the voluntary. In the heart it appears, as a rule, within an hour after death, and may be mistaken for hypertrophy, and its relaxation or dilatation, atrophy or degeneration. The left chambers are affected more than the right. Post-mortem delivery may occur owing to contraction of the uterine muscular fibres. 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. However, according to H.A. Shapiro this progress of rigor mortis from proximal to distal areas is apparent only, it actually starts in all muscles simultaneously but one can distinguish the early developing and fully established stage, which gives an indication of the time factor. 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. 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." 21. In Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology' 6th Edn., at page 3.14, it is stated : "Rigor mortis (rigor-rigidity; mortis-of death) is a condition characterized by stiffening and shortening of the muscles which follow the period of primary relaxation. It is due to chemical changes involving the structural proteins of the muscle fibres and indicates the molecular death of its cells. The contractile element of the muscle consists of protein filaments of two types, viz, myosin and actin, which are arranged and organized interdigitating manner. In the relaxed state, the actin filaments interdigitate with myosin filaments only to a small extent but when the muscle contracts, they interdigitate to a great extent due to the presence of ATP (adenosine triphosphate). The production and utilization of ATP are constantly balanced in life. After death, ATP is resynthesised for a short time depending upon the glycogen available locally, but after this glycogen is used up, ATP cannot be resynthesised. This leads to the fusion of myosin and actin filaments into a dehydrated stiff gel resulting in the condition known as rigor mortis. During rigor mortis, the reaction of muscle changes from slightly alkaline to distinctly acid owing to the local formation of lactis acid. Rigor mortis persists until autolysis of myosin and actin filaments occurs as a part of putrefaction. When autolysis occurs, the muscles soften and secondary relaxation sets in. Rigor mortis can also be broken by mechanical force. Thus, if a limb, which is stiff due to rigor, is flexed forcibly at a joint, the limb becomes flaccid and will remain so thereafter. This is known as breaking of rigor mortis. Existing rigor mortis is broken down at least partially in the process of removal of the body from the crime scene to mortuary, and this may mislead the doctor in estimation of time since death. It is therefore essential to make a note of its stage of development while visiting the crime scene. All muscles of the body, voluntary and involuntary, are affected by rigor. It is therefore essential to make a note of its stage of development while visiting the crime scene. All muscles of the body, voluntary and involuntary, are affected by rigor. It first appears in involuntary and then in voluntary muscles. It is not dependent on the nerve supply as it also develops in the paralysed limbs. It is tested by (1) attempting to lift the eye lids (2) depressing the jaw, and (3) gently bending the neck and various joints of the body." At page 3.16 it is stated : "The medico-legal importance is as follows : (1) It is a sign of death (2) It helps to estimate the time since death. (3) It may give information about the position of the body at the time of death and if it has been altered after rigor has set in. As for example, if a person dies with the hands and legs supported against a brick wall and the position of the body has been changed after rigor set in, the hands and legs would remain raised in an unnatural position (without support) The factors which influence rigor mortis are : age and condition of the body (2) mode of death, and (3) surroundings. Age and condition of the body : In children and old people, rigor develops earlier than in the adults. The onset of rigor is later and the duration longer in the strong muscular person. The more feeble or poorly developed the muscles, the more rapid is the time of onset, and the shorter the duration" 22. The exact time of death, therefore, cannot be established scientifically and precisely, only because of presence of rigour mortis or in the absence of it." 20. From the above decision, it is clear that even according to Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, in India, rigor mortis commences in one to two hours after death, based on (a) age and condition of the body; (b) mode of death; and (c) surroundings viz., climatic changes, etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after analysing various Text books relating to Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, has held that the exact time of death, therefore, cannot be established scientifically and precisely, only because of presence of rigor mortis or in the absence of it. 21. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case in Umesh Sing Vs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after analysing various Text books relating to Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, has held that the exact time of death, therefore, cannot be established scientifically and precisely, only because of presence of rigor mortis or in the absence of it. 21. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case in Umesh Sing Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 360 has held that if the medical and ocular evidence are inconsistent, then reliable ocular evidence must prevail. 22. Here, in this case, the doctor, who conducted postmortem after 4.30 hours of death of the deceased, had stated about the presence of rigor mortis on the four limbs of the deceased. Further, PW17 has not stated about the exact time of death of the deceased. The defence has also failed to raise any question with regard to the same. When the exact time of death cannot be found scientifically and precisely, only because of presence of rigor mortis or in the absence of it, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant relying upon the presence of rigor mortis, cannot be accepted. Hence, this contention is also rejected. 23. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the prosecution has clearly established the charges against the accused. The trial Court has also rightly imposed the quantum of punishment and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. 24. In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.34 of 2012 against the accused is confirmed.