The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presence and active role of the appellants in facilitating the commission of the offense, as testified by eyewitnesses, led to their criminal liability under Section 34 of the IPC.

1. The appellants-Anand and Shivaji - along with one Bholesh and one Nitin stood trial before the Sessions Court at Indore. While Bholesh was charged with commission of offences under sections 302/324/323 Indian Penal Code¹ [IPC] the appellants and Nitin were charged under sections 302/324/323/34, IPC. The Sessions Court found all four - Bholesh, Nitin, Anand and Shivaji - guilty of the charges levelled against each of them and, accordingly, sentenced them, inter-alia, to life imprisonment.

2. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence were carried in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore by all the four convicts. During the pendency of the appeal, Nitin passed away. The appeal at his instance stood abated. By the impugned judgment and order dated 14.10.2011, the appeals preferred by Bholesh as well as Anand and Shivaji were dismissed.

3. While Bholesh accepted the judgment and order dated 14.10.2011, the appellants were aggrieved resulting in this criminal appeal questioning the legality and correctness of such judgment and order.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the materials on record.

5. At the outset, learned counsel submits that Bholesh has been granted premature release by the State of Madhya Pradesh; also, he submits that after being behind bars for more than 11 years, the appellants were granted bail by this Court on 10.12.2021.

6. The impugned judgment is sought to be assailed primarily on the ground that the appellants had not indulged in any criminal act in furtherance of their common intention; therefore, no conviction could have been recorded against them, inter-alia, under Section 34 of the IPC.

7. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, we have considered it necessary to read the FIR lodged by PW-1 - Madhur, the evidence of the four eyewitnesses who are also injured witnesses - PWs 1 to 4 - as well as the evidence of PW-16 the autopsy surgeon.

8. There is no dispute that the victim - Yogesh (father of PW-1) suffered a homicidal death. The immediate cause of death is injuries sustained by him on his chest because of stabbing. According to PW-1, on the intervening night of 02.05.2004 and 03.05.2004, an altercation ensued between PW-1 and Bholesh regarding the whereabouts of one Pintu and the inability/refusal of PW-1 to share information in this behalf. This infuriated Bholesh, so much so that he brought out a knife and abused PW-1. The appellants and Nitin had accompanied Bholesh and their presence at the place of occurrence is undisputed. Having heard the altercation between Bholesh and PW-1, the victim (Yogesh) intervened to prevent any further quarrel and bring about peace. As per PW-1, the victim had enquired of Bholesh as to why he had brought out his knife. Bholesh, without any provocation, further abused the victim in the name of his mother. Then, the appellants and Nitin caught hold of the victim thereby facilitating Bholesh to inflict multiple blows on the chest of the victim resulting in his unfortunate death. While PW-1 attempted to save the victim, Bholesh stabbed PW-1 on his waist. Having heard the commotion, PWs 2, 3 and 4 sought to intervene but they too were stabbed by Bholesh whereafter the appellants, Bholesh and Nitin fled away. The testimony of PWs 2, 3 and 4 is also on similar lines, with minor discrepancies.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has sought to contend before us that the versions of the four eyewitnesses suffered from glaring inconsistencies and that the same affords a ground for this Court to interfere. Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of a coordinate bench of this court in Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 Cri. L.J. 1296 where, according to him, this Court had interfered on the ground of glaring inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses and had set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

10. No decision was required to be cited before us to drive ho