JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.7.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Sessions Trial No. 24 (NT/D) 1996 convicting the three Appellants herein, under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') to suffer life imprisonment and under Section 447 of IPC to suffer further period of three months imprisonment. 2. We have heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik and Mr. R.R. Datta, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned P.P. 3. On the night between 18.7.1994 and 19.7.1994 at about 3.0 a.m., one Gopesh Nath, aged 50 years was done to death. The accused-Petitioners are his relatives and close neighbours for 30 years. While the first and second Appellants are brothers, the third Appellant is their brother-in-law (sister's husband). The prosecution version is that the first Appellant Subodh Nath was indebted to the deceased for an amount of Rs. 4,500/-. The deceased was putting pressure on him for return of the money, which generated bad blood between them. On the fateful night at about 3.00 a.m. when the deceased with his family members were sleeping in his own house, the convict-Appellants planned to put the deceased to death and with that intention armed with wooden file and lathi ushered in the courtyard of the deceased. Subodh knocked the door and called the deceased, which had aroused the inmates. The daughter (P.W. 2) and wife (P.W. 3) of the deceased opened the door and came out first with a burning lantern. They saw the three Appellants towering over there, when Subodh told them that they had certain important talk with the deceased, who, however, also came out following his wife and daughter. The moment the deceased proceeded towards the courtyard, the assault had a sudden start from all the assailants. The sudden turning of events perplexed the daughter (P.W. 2) and wife (P.W. 3), who cried loudly attracting Nokesh Nath (P.W. 1) and his son Nirendra Nath (P.W. 4) to the spot. Nokesh is deceased's own brother living in a hut adjacent to the house of deceased. While Nokesh attempted to save his brother, he was also beaten by Narottam Nath, the third Appellant herein. The injuries sustained by the deceased on his head and other parts of his body proved to be fatal bringing to him instantaneous death. Nokesh is deceased's own brother living in a hut adjacent to the house of deceased. While Nokesh attempted to save his brother, he was also beaten by Narottam Nath, the third Appellant herein. The injuries sustained by the deceased on his head and other parts of his body proved to be fatal bringing to him instantaneous death. Nokesh Nath (P.W. 1) went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report. During the investigation by the police, the dead body was post mortem by Dr. D. R. Paul (P.W. 11), who opined that the death was due to head injury caused by blunt weapon causing thereby respiratory failure. The neighbours and villagers crowded the house of the deceased in the morning, to whom the wife and daughter of the deceased disclosed the names of the assailants, the Appellants herein. Relying on the evidence of four eye witnesses and the neighbours, who reached the place of occurrence immediately after the death of the deceased to whom the eye witnesses disclosed the names of the assailants, the learned trial court came to the finding that the Appellants were guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. They were also found guilty of criminal trespass under Section 447 of IPC. 4. The defence version is that in a motor accident, Gopesh Nath sustained injuries and died, which version without any proof or any attempt to prove was found to be absurd. No evidence, documentary or oral was adduced by the Appellants herein, in support of their defence that they had no connection with the alleged offence or that the deceased died in a motor accident. 5. It may be noticed that there are three sets of witnesses set up by the prosecution to canvass its version. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are the eye witnesses. P.Ws 2 and 3, the daughter and the wife of the deceased stated that hearing the voice of the accused Subodh, they came out with a lantern and identified all the three Appellants by the light of moon and lantern. As the assailants were close neighbours for about 30 years and near relatives, they had no difficulty to identify them. The deceased followed his wife and daughter and proceeded innocently towards the assailants when he was beaten by lathi and wooden file to death. As the assailants were close neighbours for about 30 years and near relatives, they had no difficulty to identify them. The deceased followed his wife and daughter and proceeded innocently towards the assailants when he was beaten by lathi and wooden file to death. The other two eye witnesses are Nokesh Nath (P.W. 1) and Nirendra Nath (P.W. 4), who corroborated each other that all the Appellants had assaulted Gopesh to death before their eyes. In the deposition of all the four eye witnesses, there is absolutely no inconsistency of lack of corroboration. Their testimony is firm, unambiguous and support each other regarding identity as well as the role played by the convict-Appellants. 6. The second set of witnesses includes Girindra Nath (P.W. 5), Rasamay Nath (P.W. 6), Subesh Ch. Nath (P.W. 7) and Ananda Ch. Nath (P.W. 8), who reached the house of the deceased immediately after the occurrence. It was almost dawn. To all of them, the eye witnesses disclosed that the Appellants were the offenders. Thus, prosecution evidence on identification of the assailants are on terrafirma. 7. The third set of witnesses consists of Kamal Barua (P.W. 9), who escorted the dead body for post mortem examination, Haripada Sinha (P.W. 10), who registered the First Information report. Dr. D.R. Paul (P.W. 11), who conducted the post mortem examination, Swargomohan Nath (P.W. 12), who was a seizure list witness and Shri Bhabatosh Talukdar (P.W. 13), who had conducted the investigation and submitted the chargesheet. The important piece of evidence which comes from P.W. 13 is that on the following morning when he reached the place of occurrence where the neighbours flocked, the Appellants who were closed-door neighbours were not present. Though P.W. 13 could arrest Narottam Nath, the other two Appellants had absconded. The evidence of eye witnesses and the neighbours regarding involvement of the three Appellants in the said offence found additional support from the circumstances showing the Appellants absent in the house of the deceased with the first and second Appellants absconding. 8. An argument was placed by Mr. Kar Bhowmik that all the four eye witnesses being close relatives cannot claim full credence in view of the admitted fact that there was enmity between the deceased and the first Appellant Subodh on repayment of debt amounting to Rs. 4,500/-. 9. 8. An argument was placed by Mr. Kar Bhowmik that all the four eye witnesses being close relatives cannot claim full credence in view of the admitted fact that there was enmity between the deceased and the first Appellant Subodh on repayment of debt amounting to Rs. 4,500/-. 9. We do not feel it necessary to seek support from any particular citation to record here the settled legal position that close relations with the deceased can never be a ground for disbelieving their testimony. Human psychology is almost uniform in its response to the death of a dear one that no close relative would spare the real assailants and falsely implicate innocent ones. In the given circumstances particularly at the time of occurrence, which was 3.00 a.m., it was not expected that persons other than inmates would be available in the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed. The time chosen by the Appellants for launching the attack goes to show that they came there with pre-meditated plan to do to death the deceased. Prior meeting of minds being so eloquent that there was no difficulty for the learned trial court to bind the Appellants under Section 34IPC. 10. The evidences of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 about light from moon and lantern could not be eclipsed by cross examination. As a matter of fact, we have noticed that the entire part of the cross examination of the witnesses by the defence miserably failed to discredit the veracity of their version which unmistakably held the Appellants as the real assailants. The cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by the defence counsel consists of nothing but some suggestions only, which are not capable of providing any sort of defence for the rescue of the convict-Appellants. The seizure of the wooden file, which was the weapon of the offences, was found in the house of Subodh Nath. Thus, the testimony of four eye witnesses identifying the assailants in the light of the moon and the lantern, and those of P.Ws. The seizure of the wooden file, which was the weapon of the offences, was found in the house of Subodh Nath. Thus, the testimony of four eye witnesses identifying the assailants in the light of the moon and the lantern, and those of P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8 to whom the eye witnesses disclosed the names of the assailants immediately after the occurrence found support from seizure of the wooden file from the house of the first Appellant and abscondence of first and second Appellant immediately after the occurrence which fact carry tremendous probative value in favour of the prosecution culminating into conviction and sentence. 11. Certain decisions of the Supreme Court have, however, been relied on by Mr. Kar Bhowmik, of which a brief reference would suffice. In Ram Pukar Thakur and Ors. v. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1974 SC 284 , an 18 year old boy was done to death which was seen by only one witness. The testimony of the sole eye witness was not believed firstly because he did not disclose the name of the Appellants to the persons who had visited his house after the occurrence. Because of serious infirmities in his evidence, the accused persons finally were acquitted. His claim of identifying the accused persons was disbelieved as he did not refer to the torchlight in his statement to the police on the following morning. The situation on hand is different here, inasmuch as there were four eye witnesses, all of whom corroborated each other. Though the lantern was not seized, which may be a lapse on the part of the investigating police officer, it cannot be a reason for disbelieving ocular testimony of the eye witnesses that there was a lantern helping them to identify the assailants who were close-door neighbours and close relatives. That apart, the light of the moon as well as voice of the Appellants helped the eye witnesses to unmistakably identify the Appellants being the assailants. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhola Singh reported in AIR 1994 SC 542 , the occurrence had taken place in dark night and the evidence of one eye witness Gurdeep Singh could not be believed as the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove that there was any source of light to identify the assailants. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhola Singh reported in AIR 1994 SC 542 , the occurrence had taken place in dark night and the evidence of one eye witness Gurdeep Singh could not be believed as the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove that there was any source of light to identify the assailants. The other decision referred to by the Appellants is Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1993 SC 1469 . In that case there was no mention of presence of some persons as eye witnesses in the complaint and for that reason the evidence of witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses was disbelieved by the court. It would appear from above citations that the factual positions under which the said decisions were rendered are different and dissimilar from the factum of the present case on question of identification, source of light and consistency in the deposition of witnesses. Here it is a clear case of consistency in the deposition of the four eye witnesses who could not mistake to identify the assailants being their close neighbours and relatives in as much as for identification of such assailants light of moon, lantern and their voice were more than enough. 12. As regards the common intention of all the three Appellants to commit murder of Gopesh Nath, it is the submission of Mr. Kar Bhowmik that the Appellants had no intention to commit the offence of murder, which would be evident from the fact that as per prosecution version the assailants had no lethal weapon to commit such an offence. No doubt the law enjoins that to substantiate the charge under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC it must be shown that the alleged criminal act was done by the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all of them. As seen above, the convict Appellants came to the house of the deceased after midnight with lathi and wooden file in their hands, which fact suggest that at least they had no pious intention. The moment the deceased came out at their call following his wife and daughter and proceeded towards the Appellants, the attack was launched with no loss of time, which again suggest a pre-meditated action and prior meeting of minds. The moment the deceased came out at their call following his wife and daughter and proceeded towards the Appellants, the attack was launched with no loss of time, which again suggest a pre-meditated action and prior meeting of minds. This factual premises has everything to suggest that aid of Section 34 IPC was very much available to the prosecution to bind all the three assailants. 13. Mr. Sarkar, learned special P.P. argued strongly that this is a case where prosecution has left no laches in proving that none but the Appellants herein murdered Gopesh Nath. According to him, there cannot be any reason to disbelieve the impeccable statements of the four eye witnesses before whose eyes the deceased was done to death. They committed no mistake in disclosing the names of all the three witnesses to P.W. 5, 6, 7 and 8, who were neighbours and came to the house of the deceased immediately after the occurrence. The question of the weapon-used by the assailants has also been satisfactorily answered by the prosecution with reference to the post mortem report who stated that the lacerated injuries as well as the cut injury could be done by bamboo lathi or wooden file. The sharp edge of the wooden file may cause cut injury while the flat part of the same may cause lacerated ones. It is the further submission of Mr. Sarkar that cooked up story of defence that the deceased died in a motor accident falls flat for want of any evidence to such an absurd plea. The prosecution case gains more strength and dazzles like a burning star staring at the face of the feeble defence. 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution evidence are on terrafirma proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We are convinced that the modus operandi noticed above left no infirmity or lacunae in establishing the prosecution case and, therefore, the judgment impugned herein does not call for any interference from this court. Accordingly, this appeal having no merit is liable to be dismissed, which we hereby do. Appeal dismissed