Exact Time Of Death Can't Be Conclusively Ascertained On Basis Of Presence Or Absence Of 'Rigor Mortis': Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently held that the conclusive proof of exact time of death cannot be ascertained on the basis of presence or absence of 'rigor mortis', which is a post-mortem change resulting in stiffening of body muscles due to chemical changes in the dead body.

While clarifying the position with regard to reliability of the scientific evidence, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed:

“…no straight jacket formula can be laid down that in every case, the rigor mortis would appear at a particular point of time and disappear after a particular time irrespective of the age, the surroundings, the type of assault made to the deceased etc. Further it is an admitted position of law that exact time of death cannot be established scientifically and precisely, only because of presence of rigor mortis or in the absence of it.”

Prosecution Case

The appellant in this case used to cause assault to the deceased, who was his wife, on a regular basis. On 26.08.1998, the appellant again assaulted the deceased for which she came to the house of her mother and submitted a complaint to the head of her community for resolution of dispute.

However, before the dispute could be resolved, the appellant killed the deceased by stabbing her with a knife while she was out for answering the call of nature. Two witnesses allegedly heard the cry of the deceased and when they proceeded to the spot, they could see the appellant stabbing the deceased and running away from the spot.

An FIR was lodged and investigation was carried out. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. After examining the versions of the witnesses as well as other evidence on record, the trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 302, IPC.

Being aggrieved, he filed this appeal challenging his conviction.

Court's Observations

Upon perusing the evidence of the post-mortem doctor, the Court came to a definite conclusion that the deceased met with a homicidal death which was caused by hemorrhagic shock due to stab wound and the time of death was opined to be more than 36 hours from the time of post-mortem as rigor mortis had already passed off.

The Court further went through the testimonies of the two occurrence witnesses who consistently stated about seeing the appellant stabbing the deceased and fleeing away from the spot.

The Court took into consideration the submission by the counsel for the appellant that as per the version of two witnesses, the timing of the occurrence was said to be between 1 to 2 PM on 29.08.1998 and the post-mortem examination was held at about 11:30 AM on 30.08.1998. Thus, the death of the deceased was just 22 hours prior to the post-mortem examination whereas the doctor opined the death to have happened more than 36 hours prior to the examination.

At this juncture, the Court relied upon a research article published in the Journal of Forensic Science and Criminal Investigation in which it was found that several factors affect the appearance and disappearance of rigor mortis such as –

1. age, sex and physical condition of the body;
2. biochemical changes in the body;
3. mode of death;
4. surrounding environmental temperature;
5. humidity and movement of air around the body etc.

Thus, having regard to aforesaid findings, the Bench opined that the period of onset, lasting and passing off of rigor mortis varies from case to case. Therefore, it held, no rigid method can be carved out by which the particular time of appearance and disappearance of rigor mortis can be ascertained irrespective of time of death, age of the deceased, the surroundings and the type of assault made to the deceased.

“In the case in hand, since the reason assigned by the doctor is not in consonance with medical jurisprudence and when the evidence of two eye witnesses are clear, trustworthy and reliable, on the basis of the expert's opinion with respect to the time since death, we cannot disbelieve the evidence of the two eye witnesses,” the Court concluded.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by upholding the conviction of the appellant.

Case Title: Prafulla Patra v. State of Odisha

Case No: Jail Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2005

Date of Judgment: February 12, 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Amicus Curiae

Counsel for the State: Mr. Arupananda Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 19

Click Here To Read/Download Order