PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal from Jail, Mora alias Muchiram Murmu calls in question legality of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada holding the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') guilty, and convicting him for commission of an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows :on 26-8-1991 the accused and five others namely Bhima Murmu alias Manka, Syam Murmu alias Mathura, Tumi alias Chaitanya Murmu, Purna Chandra Murmu and Chandra alias Katra Murmu (since acquitted) formed an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons like tangi, axe and lathi trespassed into the house of the informant Lalmohan Murmu (P. W. 1), and there accused Mora caused death of mother of the informant by attacking her with a tangi, Karna tudu (P. W. 3), mother-in-law of Lalmohan who was present nearby cried for help and Lalmohan, his wife Parbati Murmu (P. W. 2) and his wife's brother Masa Tudu (P. W. 4) rushed to the spot. When Lalmohan challenged the attackers as to why they attacked on his mother, he was attacked by a lathi whereby bleeding injury on his head was caused. Somehow Lalmohan and his wife ran away and informed the co-villagers. Choukidar of the village was called and the matter was reported to the police authorities. After investigation, charge sheet was placed. ( 3 ) THE accused persons pleaded innocence. Charge was framed under Ss. 148 and 302/149, IPC, and they were placed on trial. ( 4 ) NINE witnesses were examined by the prosecution to further its case. P. Ws. 1 to 4 claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 3 is the lady who was nearby when the attacks took place. She has described the scenario as to how the attack on the deceased came. P. W. 6 Surendra Baskey is the doctor who treated Lalmohan (P. W. 1) and P. W. 7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. P. W. 6 Surendra Baskey is the doctor who treated Lalmohan (P. W. 1) and P. W. 7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellant stated that the evidence of P. W. 3 is to the effect that she did not see the attack on the deceased and therefore, prosecution has failed to establish its version. She has only stated that the blow was given to the deceased when he was facing in some other direction. On a close reading of P. W. 3's evidence in entirety the irresistible conclusion is that accused Mora dealt the blow on the deceased. It is clear from the evidence that the accused was one of the persons who was holding a Kapi (tangi) and dealt blow with it on the chest of the deceased thereby causing his death. The person holding the Kapi has been positively identified by P. Ws. 1 and 2 to be accused Mora. They have stated that he alone was standing near the deceased. P. W. 4 stated that he tried to remove the kapi from the accused's hands but failed. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 9) stated that he arrested the accused person and Mora the accused while in custody gave a statement that he had concealed the kapi and wearing apparels in the house of his brother Mathura, and as saying he led them to the house of his brother and gave recovery of tangi (kapi) and napkin (M. Os. VI and VII) respectively. P. W. 5 corroborated the statement about concealment of tangi (kapi) and about accused Mora leading the police officials, and his producing the napkin and tangi (kapi ). The witness has also proved the seizure list Ext. 5 and his signature Ext. 5/1. Evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 are categorical to the extent that the accused Mora was holding the kapi and he was near the deceased, while others had not attacked the deceased. In view of this statement, other accused persons have been acquitted. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submitted that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be accepted because they are related to the deceased. In view of this statement, other accused persons have been acquitted. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submitted that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be accepted because they are related to the deceased. So far as acceptability of evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 is concerned, they have stated about the incident in graphic details and in spite of elaborate cross-examination, no noticeable or major infirmity therein is noticed. Merely because they are related to deceased, that cannot be a ground for disbelieving their statement. Relation or a friend would not normally falsely implicated a person thereby shielding the actual culprit. No foundation of false implication has been established. There is no dispute that a person lost his life. That being so, normal human behaviour would be to expose the real culprit, and not to shield him. A relative instead of being a partisan witness is normally supposed to be impartial, and bring real culprit to face trial, and not to let loose him, to rope in innocent persons. Learned trial Judge has analysed the evidence elaborately and we find no deficiency in the analysis and/or reasoning. ( 7 ) IN view of the categorical evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4, it has been clearly established that the accused was the author of the crime. Therefore, the conviction and consequentially the sentence cannot be faulted. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. ( 8 ) S. N. PHUKAN, C. J. : -. I agree. Appeal dismissed.