JUDGMENT : L.K. Mishra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada in Sessions Trial Case No. 47 of 2001 by which he convicted the Appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 05.07.2001 at about 7.30 P.M. while Ramakanta Sahoo, hereinafter called as "the deceased" was in his grocery shop and the informant Maheswar Sahoo @ Mitu was going to the said shop from his house, he heard hullah of the deceased to rescue him. On running to the spot, he found the deceased coming from the side of his shop in an injured condition. The deceased told him that the accused entered into the shop, closed the door and gave cut blows by a bhujali to his head and hands. At that time, Maheswar saw the accused coming out from his shop with a bhujali and running away. He saw the same in a lantern light which was burning in the shop. The deceased was shifted to Udala hospital where he was declared dead on arrival. Maheswar Sahoo lodged a written report before the O.I.C., Kaptipada P.S. on which Police registered a P.S.case and proceeded with investigation, 3. During the investigation, police held inquest over the dead body, sent the same for post-mortem examination, arrested the accused, seized his wearing apparels which were stained with blood, recorded his statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act pursuant to which from beneath a heap of straw the weapon of offence, a Bhujali was recovered and was seized. Incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination and on completion of investigation charge sheet was placed against the accused. During trial the plea of the accused was one of total denial and false implication due to enmity. Prosecution examined a total 12 Nos. of witnesses but no defense was adduced. On the basis of the evidence adduced the learned trial court found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as above occasioning this appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the identification of the Appellant is doubtful and that his so-called dying declaration is not trustworthy. On the aforesaid ground he submitted that the conviction is not proper. Learned Addl. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the identification of the Appellant is doubtful and that his so-called dying declaration is not trustworthy. On the aforesaid ground he submitted that the conviction is not proper. Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that on the evidence adduced in this case the conviction is entirely justified. 5. The post mortem report Ext.5 and the evidence of the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination i.e. Dr. Niranjan Rout (P.W.5) shows that the deceased had received five incised wounds on his body including one on his occipital protuberance. According to him the cause of death was as a result of injury to the brain. During trial and at the time of hearing of this appeal, the homicidal nature of death of the deceased was not disputed. Therefore, it is not necessary to delve deeper into this aspect and it can be safely held that the homicidal nature of the death stands established in this case. It remains to be seen whether the accused is the author of the injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased. 6. P.W.2 Maheswar Sahoo is none other than the younger brother of the deceased. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, while he was going towards the shop of the deceased he saw his brother coming out of the shop in a injured condition having sustained cut injuries on the back portion of his head and both the hands. On his enquiry the deceased told him that the accused entered into his shop and caused such injuries. He looked towards the shop where a lantern was burning and with the help of that light he saw the accused standing there holding a blood stained bhujali (M.O.I). Soon thereafter the accused went away and the deceased was taken to his house where he died. Despite rigorous cross-examination his evidence has not been shaken in the least. No interestedness or enemity has also been proved against him. On the other hand, he being a natural witness and that too the own brother of the deceased did not have any interest in falsely implicating the accused at the cost of letting the real assailant go scot free. A relative would be the last person to implicate a person falsely since it would amount to exonerate the real culprit. On the other hand, he being a natural witness and that too the own brother of the deceased did not have any interest in falsely implicating the accused at the cost of letting the real assailant go scot free. A relative would be the last person to implicate a person falsely since it would amount to exonerate the real culprit. This is more so when a single accused is involved. We do not find any reason at all to discard the evidence of P.W.2. 7. P.W.8 Sukra Singh is another eye witness who has corroborated the evidence of PW.2. His statement has gone virtually unchallenged in cross-examination and no contradiction has been brought out from his mouth. P.W.1 Prakash Sahoo is another witness, who having heard the call of somebody for rescue rushed to the shop of the deceased and found the deceased running towards his house in a bleeding condition telling that the accused has injured him. He also noticed the accused standing in front of the shop holding a blood stained bhujali in his hand. Nothing of substance has been brought out in his cross-examination. The evidence of eye witnesses, thus, is clinching and on this basis alone the guilt of the accused stands proved. In addition to the above before P. Ws 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10 (Surendranath Sahoo, the father of the deceased) the deceased told soon before his death that the accused has injured. 8. A point has been raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that the deceased could not have told anything before his death in view of his injuries. This stands belied on the basis of the medical evidence. P.W.5, Dr. Niranjan Rout has stated in his cross-examination that after receiving injury on the brain, the injured can talk for a few minutes depending on the extent of the injuries. In the present case, after receiving the injury the deceased gave his oral dying declaration which is not ruled out by medical evidence. To cap it all, the weapon of offence i.e. Bhujali (M.O.I) was seized basing on the statement of the accused from the place where it was concealed beneath a straw heap. This bhujali was identified by P.W.2 to be the weapon of murder. This also goes to corroborate the prosecution case. To cap it all, the weapon of offence i.e. Bhujali (M.O.I) was seized basing on the statement of the accused from the place where it was concealed beneath a straw heap. This bhujali was identified by P.W.2 to be the weapon of murder. This also goes to corroborate the prosecution case. From the conspectus of evidence discussed above, the sole conclusion which can be reached is that it is the accused who inflicted injuries on the deceased. 9. It is next submitted on behalf of the Appellant that it is not a case u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but at best would come u/s 304II of the Indian Penal Code. We are unable to agree with the contention. The accused came to the shop of the deceased being armed with a bhujali and the only inference could be that the accused came there with the sole intention of committing his murder. There was no quarrel or fight between the accused and the deceased preceding the occurrence. The accused also inflicted as many as five incised wounds on the deceased out of which injury to the head was severe enough to seriously injure the brain resulting in death. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused had the intention of committing murder of the deceased pursuant to which he inflicted injuries. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are confirmed. Final Result : Dismissed