Judgment: Rakesh Saksena, J.;- Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 4th December, 2000, passed by Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No.91/2000, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. According to prosecution, Matiabai (deceased) resided in village Magarwada. Appellant Phagan also resided in her neighbourhood. In the night of 7.4.2000, there occurred some altercation between them. Appellant asked Matiabai to leave the village since he wanted to grab her land. In the past also he had threatened her in that regard. In the night intervening, between 15.4.2000 and 16.4.2000, Shyamwati Bai (PW-6) and Matiabai (PW-7) heard cries of Matiabai (deceased) that she was being beaten. Both of them saw appellant assaulting Matiabai with stick. Getting frightened, Shyamwati went in the forest where her father-in-law was staying. Matiabai (PW-7) informed the incident to her husband Matu Singh (PW-4), who happened to be the brother of deceased Matiabai. As a result of injuries, Matiabai died. Matu Singh informed the incident to lady Kotwar and alongwith her went to Police Station, Motinala and lodged first information report (Ex.P/4) at 12.30 pm. 3. Investigating Officer, Inspector Virendra Singh (PW-9), went at the spot, conducted inquest proceedings, recorded inquest memorandum (Ex.P/7) in presence of witnesses, seized blood stained articles from the spot and sent the body of deceased to hospital for postmortem examination. He arrested the appellant on 19.4.2000 and at his instance, he seized his clothes and stick. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in the court of Magistrate. The case was then committed for trial. 4. During trial, on charge being framed, appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, relying mainly on the evidence of eyewitnesses Shyamwati (PW-6), Matiabai (PW-7) and the medical evidence of Dr. M.S. Qureshi (PW-8), held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. 6. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the evidence of eyewitnesses was inconsistent and contradictory. Matiabai (PW-7) happened to be the relative of deceased. It was not possible for the eyewitnesses to have identified the assailant in the night. 6. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the evidence of eyewitnesses was inconsistent and contradictory. Matiabai (PW-7) happened to be the relative of deceased. It was not possible for the eyewitnesses to have identified the assailant in the night. Learned trial judge misappreciated the evidence of witnesses without taking into consideration that the evidence of identification by Shyamwati (PW-6) on the basis of voice was risky and unreliable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of appellant was illegal and deserved to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the direct evidence of eyewitnesses adduced by the prosecution in the case was rightly relied upon by the learned trial judge. The judgment of conviction of appellant was justified and did not call for any interference. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully. 9. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that deceased died and her death was homicidal in nature. Shyamwati (PW-6), Matiabai (PW-7) and Matu Singh (PW-4) deposed that deceased died due to injuries. Investigating Officer, Inspector Virendrda Singh (PW-9), conducted inquest of the body of deceased and recorded inquest memorandum (Ex.P/7) in presence of witnesses. He sent the body of deceased to Primary Health Centre, Bichiya where Dr. M.S. Qureshi (PW-8) alongwith Assistant Surgeon Dr. Shashikala Barkade conducted autopsy of the body and found following injuries on the body of deceased: “1. Lacerated wound 6 x 3 x bone deep extending from forehead to frontal part of scalp. 2. Lacerated wound 4 x 1 x bone deep on left parietal region upper part. 3. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 x bone deep on left parietal region below injury No.2. 4. Lacerated wound 5 x 1 x bone deep on left parietal region below injury No.3. 5. Lacerated wound 2 cm obliquely linear on left ear pinna. 6. Contusion with abrasion 2 x 1 cm on right side of forehead near scalp. 7. Abrasion 4 x 2 cm on right elbow posteriorly. 8. Abrasion 3 x 3 cm on right knee anteriorly. 9. Contusion with abrasion 3 x 2 cm on left knee. 10.Contusion 3 x 2 cm over back above left scapula. 6. Contusion with abrasion 2 x 1 cm on right side of forehead near scalp. 7. Abrasion 4 x 2 cm on right elbow posteriorly. 8. Abrasion 3 x 3 cm on right knee anteriorly. 9. Contusion with abrasion 3 x 2 cm on left knee. 10.Contusion 3 x 2 cm over back above left scapula. 11.Contusion 4 x 2 cm over back on left side below injury No.10. 12.Contusion with abrasion on right shoulder posteriorly. 13.Contusion 3 x 2 cm medially on left thigh. Injuries No.1,2,3,4,5,10,11 and 13 were caused by hard and blunt object. Injuries No. 7 and 8 were caused by hard and rough object. Injuries No.6,9 and 12 were caused by hard, blunt and rough object. On internal examination doctor found fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs. At the place of fracture, right and left lungs were ruptured. There was no fracture in skull. The death of deceased was caused due to excessive haemorrhage from the injuries on vital parts of the body and shock resulting in cardiac arrest. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report Ex.P/18 was written and signed by doctor. From the aforesaid evidence, we find it proved that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. Now the question before us is whether it was appellant who caused injuries to deceased which resulted into her death. 11. From the evidence of Shyamwati (PW-6) and Matiabai (PW-7) it is apparent that their houses are in the same locality. Deceased also resided in the neighbourhood. The house of appellant Phagu is also situated at a distance of two houses from the house of Shyamwati (PW-6). Matiabai (PW-7) happened to be the wife of Matu Singh (PW-4), the brother of deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since Matiabai (PW-7) was relative witness, her evidence was not reliable. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Merely on the ground that a witness is relative witness, his or her evidence cannot be rejected outright. The court is, however, expected to adopt a careful approach and analyze the evidence of such witness to find out his/her credibility. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Merely on the ground that a witness is relative witness, his or her evidence cannot be rejected outright. The court is, however, expected to adopt a careful approach and analyze the evidence of such witness to find out his/her credibility. In case of Mano v. State of Tamil Nadu- (2007) 13 SCC 795 , the Apex Court observed “The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made. In such case, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.” 12. Shyamwati (PW-6) stated that she knew appellant. He resided in her neighbourhood. The house of deceased was also situated at a short distance from her house. In the night she alongwith her child was sleeping on the roof of her house. Around midnight, she heard cries of deceased. It was a moonlit night. She was shouting “dadda bachao”. She used to call 'dadda' to her father-in-law. She was shouting near the mango and bamboo trees situated around 10 cubits distance from her door. She saw appellant assaulting deceased with a stick. According to this witness, she asked appellant not to beat deceased as she was all alone in her house. Out of fear she jumped from the roof and went to the forest where her father-in-law was staying. At the time of beating appellant was saying that Matiabai (deceased) should go away from the village otherwise he would kill her. Shyamwati stated that at the time of occurrence her neighbour Matiabai (PW-7), wife of Matu Singh, was also present in the courtyard. Other persons of her house had gone in the forest for picking up 'mahua' fruits. She went in the forest and narrated the occurrence to her father-in-law. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of this witness was not reliable because in paragraph-8 of her statement she stated that she had identified accused by his voice. Other persons of her house had gone in the forest for picking up 'mahua' fruits. She went in the forest and narrated the occurrence to her father-in-law. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of this witness was not reliable because in paragraph-8 of her statement she stated that she had identified accused by his voice. He placed reliance on the observations made in Jamser Ali and others v. The State of Tripura-AIR 1954 Tripura 11, Jalamsingh v. State of M.P.-1978 M.P. Weekly Notes 191 and Punjiya v. State-1964 JLJ Notes 219. Ratio of all the said three precedents is that identification of accused made from his voice is risky and a week type of evidence and it is not safe to rely on such identification. We though agree with the ratio of these precedents, but, we find them not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand for the reasons that it is not the sole evidence in the present case and that it was not a pitch dark night when the incident occurred. Apart from it, this witness firmly stated that appellant was her neighbour and well known to her. She saw and identified him in the moonlit night. She saw incident just from a distance of 10 cubits. She was not related to deceased. Despite a lengthy cross-examination, she remained firm in saying that she saw appellant assaulting deceased with stick in front of her house. Merely because the incident occurred in the night, it cannot be doubted that she did not see the incident. 13. The evidence of Shyamwati (PW-6) stood corroborated from the evidence of Matiabai (PW-7) who stated that she knew appellant and the deceased. She happened to be the wife of Matu Singh, brother of deceased. Her house was situated in the neighbourhood of deceased. A day before the incident, appellant approached to her and told that she should make the deceased understand that she should not quarrel with him. According to her, appellant told that he was going to convene a panchayat, but before panchayat could be called, the incident occurred. In the night, when she was at her house, her husband had gone for grazing cattle, appellant went at the house of deceased and assaulted her. According to her, appellant told that he was going to convene a panchayat, but before panchayat could be called, the incident occurred. In the night, when she was at her house, her husband had gone for grazing cattle, appellant went at the house of deceased and assaulted her. When she tried to run towards her house, on way, in front of the house of Shyamwati, she was assaulted by him with a long piece of wood. Hearing her cries, when she went out of her house, she saw appellant assaulting deceased. Out of fear, she went inside her house. She also saw Shyamwati seeing the incident, who immediately thereafter ran away in the forest. She also went to gwari and informed her husband about the occurrence. Next day, alongwith her husband, she returned to village, saw dead body of deceased lying in the courtyard and informed the incident to lady kotwar. Her husband alongwith kotwar went to police station to lodge report. This witness categorically stated that she had identified the appellant by his face since it was a moonlit night. She did not shout because of fear. 14. Evidence of Matiabai (PW-7) stood corroborated by the evidence of Matu Singh (PW-4), who stated that in the morning his wife i.e. Matiabai (PW-7) came and met him in Charagaon and informed that appellant killed his sister Matiabai. He went to village and saw his sister lying dead in the courtyard. He then went to lady kotwar and informed her about the incident. He also went to police station and lodged first information report (Ex.P/4). The evidence of Matu Singh finds support from the first information report (Ex.P/4) wherein he disclosed that appellant caused the death of his sister. He also mentioned the names of Shyamwati (PW-6) and Matiabai (PW-7) as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. 15. We are unable to accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not probable that the eyewitnesses could have identified the assailant in the night. He also mentioned the names of Shyamwati (PW-6) and Matiabai (PW-7) as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. 15. We are unable to accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not probable that the eyewitnesses could have identified the assailant in the night. In case of Israr v. State of U.P.- (2005) 9 SCC 616 the Apex Court observed that “a known person can be identified from a distance even without much light.” The ratio of Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra9 (2009) 10 SCC 773 , cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, in our opinion, does not apply in the instant case as the incident in the said case occurred at a temple which was illuminated due to annual fair and there were other lights also at the temple and it was also a full moon night. In those circumstances, the Apex Court found it difficult to accept the submission of appellant that there was not enough light at the place of incident and, therefore, the incident could not have been seen. In the present case, the witnesses were neighbours of deceased as well as of appellant. They were well known to each other. It was established by the evidence of eyewitnesses that it was a moonlit night. Therefore, in our opinion, learned trial judge committed no error in holding that Shyamwati (PW-6) and Matiabai (PW-7) identified the appellant as assailant of deceased. Their evidence appears cogent, consistent and creditworthy. From their evidence it stood amply established that it was appellant who assaulted deceased with a stick and caused injuries to her, which resulted into her death. 16. From the evidence of Dr. M.S. Qureshi (PW-9) it is proved that deceased was found to have sustained 13 injuries by hard and blunt object. Six injuries were found on vital part of her body like head. Her 3rd and 4th ribs were fractured which had ruptured her lungs. In the opinion of Dr. Qureshi the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of deceased. It is thus established that appellant assaulted deceased with the intention of committing her murder. 17. We find no error in the finding of conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Qureshi the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of deceased. It is thus established that appellant assaulted deceased with the intention of committing her murder. 17. We find no error in the finding of conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The impugned judgment is, therefore, affirmed and the appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed.