JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No. 82/2002 (Ishfaque v. State of M.P.) since both the appeals have arisen from a common judgment. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th December. 2001 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No. 155/2000 convicting appellant under Section 302/ 34 of IPC and further convicting co-appellant Ishfaque under Sections 302/ 34 and 324 of IPC and also convicting third accused Dileep under Section 324/ 34 of IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the appellant of this appeal and appellant of connected criminal appeal have knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal and connected criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. In brief the case of prosecution is that earlier to the date of incident which is 13.2.2000 sister of complainant Annu Mandre, namely Lalita complained him that accused Dileep teases her, as a result of which, Dileep started keeping enmity with complainant Annu Mandre. On the fateful day viz. 13.2.2000 at 9.30 p.m. complainant Annu Mandre and his friend Jaimane (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) were talking to each other in front of one Beer Bar, at that juncture, on one Hero Puch vehicle having registration No. MP07/C 1733 and Scooter No. MP07/Y.A. 7879 accused Dileep, appellant Sunil and co-appellant Ishfaque arrived there. At that juncture, it is said that co-accused Dileep altercated with the complainant and caught hold of him. Thereafter, co-appellant Ishfaque took out the knife from his pocket and dealt its blow on complainant Annu Mandre in order to kill him and he sustained injury nearby his right arm. On seeing this, deceased Jaimane tried to rescue his friend Annu Mandre, but appellant Sunil caught hold of him (deceased). Thereafter, co-appellant Ishfaque leaving aside complainant Annu Mandre, in order to kill the deceased dealt several knife blows on his chest, back and armpit region. Thereafter, appellant Sunil also caused injuries by knife to the deceased. On receiving the injuries, the deceased fell down. At that time, Satish, Devendra Thakur and Rajiv Diwan arrived there. Thereafter, co-appellant Ishfaque leaving aside complainant Annu Mandre, in order to kill the deceased dealt several knife blows on his chest, back and armpit region. Thereafter, appellant Sunil also caused injuries by knife to the deceased. On receiving the injuries, the deceased fell down. At that time, Satish, Devendra Thakur and Rajiv Diwan arrived there. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled from the place of occurrence on the vehicles by which they came to the spot. 4. Complainant Annu Mandre brought the deceased to the hospital where the doctors declared him to be dead. Thereafter, by keeping the dead-body of the deceased in the mortuary, complainant Annu Mandre arrived at Police Station, Janakganj, at 10.30 p.m. and lodged the FIR. 5. On lodging of the FIR the case was registered and the investigation was started. Injured Annu Mandre was sent to the hospital for obtaining his MLC report as well as to provide necessary treatment to him. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and accused persons were arrested. 6. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the: committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial. 7. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of material placed on record, framed charges punishable under Section 307 or in the alternative 307/ 34 and under Section 302 or in the alternative 302/ 34 of IPC against the appellants as well as co-accused Dileep which they denied and requested for the trial. 8. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and placed Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24, the documents on record. The defence of co-accused Dileep is of alibi apart from false implication and in his defence, he examined three witnesses, they are Lalita (DW-1), Sulochana (DW-2) and Arti Jain (DW-3). The defence of appellants is of false implication. 9. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record, came to hold that co-accused Dileep has committed the offence under Section 324/ 34 of IPC, as a result of which convicted him and accordingly passed the sentence which is mentioned in the impugned judgment. The defence of appellants is of false implication. 9. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record, came to hold that co-accused Dileep has committed the offence under Section 324/ 34 of IPC, as a result of which convicted him and accordingly passed the sentence which is mentioned in the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that appellant Sunil has committed the offence under Section 302/ 34 of IPC, while co-appellant Ishfaque has committed the offence under Sections 302/ 34 and 324 of IPC and eventually convicted them and passed the sentence which is mentioned in the impugned judgment. 10. In this manner, this appeal and connected criminal appeal have been filed by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. It has been vehemently contended by Shri Pateria, learned counsel for appellant-Sunil, that in the present case looking to the evidence placed on record, it is difficult to hold that appellant Sunil has committed any offence because the star witness to the incident is not at all reliable. It has been put-forth by him that apart from star witness complainant Annu Mandre (PW-4), the prosecution has examined two more eyewitnesses, namely Devendra (PW-7) and Rajeev (PW-9). The contention of learned counsel is that prosecution has deliberately not examined third eye-witness Satish, and therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. It has been then contended by him that if the evidence of Rajeev is taken into consideration in its true perspective, it would reveal that he has stated altogether different version which has peen stated by complainant Annu Mandre because it has come in his testimony that co-accused Dileep caught hold of the deceased and if that would be the position, statement of Rajeev would stand on different footing with the story put forth by injured witness Annu Mandre, and therefore, the benefit would go to the appellant. It has also been put-forth by learned counsel that specifically Annu Mandre (PW-4) is saying in para 21 of his cross-examination that after the blows were dealt by co-appellant Ishfaque, this appellant caused one or two blows to the deceased, but he cannot say whether those blows landed on the person of the deceased or not, and therefore, the case of prosecution has become highly suspicious in nature. 12. 12. In the similar manner, Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for co-appellant Ishfaque, argued and submitted that prosecution witnesses are not at all reliable. 13. An alternative submission has also been put forth by learned counsel for the. appellants that if this Court comes to the conclusion that on account of giving blows of knives by the appellants the deceased had died, since there was no intention to cause death to the deceased because the deceased was not even known to the appellants, although they came to give a lesson to Annu Mandre, therefore, at the most, then-act would come within the ambit and sweep of Section 304 Part I of IPC and since both the appellants have suffered the jail sentence of more than 10 years, according to learned counsel, this custodial sentence would be sufficient for the offence they have committed. 14. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that looking to the repeated brutal blows of knives caused by both the appellants to the deceased, the case would not rest under Section 304 Part I of IPC, but it would amount to culpable homicide amounting to murder as defined in Sections 299 and 300 of IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that looking to the depth of injury No. l which is 16 cm, not only the lung of the deceased was chopped, but the knife blow also pierced his liver and thereafter also repeated blows were given by the appellants, and therefore, the intention to kill the deceased at the spot is made out, and hence, learned Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants under Section 302/ 34 of IPC. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal and connected criminal appeal deserve to be dismissed. 16. It appears from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly eyewitnesses that citizens and inhabitants of this country are still following the myth verdict stated in the Wed to serve the humanity. It has been stated in the Wed. (Matter in other language) True on scanning the testimony of complainant Annu Mandre (PW 4), we find that there was no enmity between the appellants and the deceased who was accompanying the complainant. It has been stated in the Wed. (Matter in other language) True on scanning the testimony of complainant Annu Mandre (PW 4), we find that there was no enmity between the appellants and the deceased who was accompanying the complainant. Indeed, Annu Mandre was keeping some enmity with co-accused Dileep since he was teasing his sister Lalita. It is also borne out from the evidence of the witnesses that later on Lalita and Dileep had married and they are living together happily. 17. On bare perusal of the evidence of complainant Annu Mandre (PW 4), we find that Ishfaque caused injury to Annu Mandre by knife and when the deceased came to intervene, leaving aside Annu Mandre. Ishfaque started causing injuries by knife to the deceased, while appellant Sunil caught hold of him. The episode did not end here only and the alternative submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the case would come under Section 304 Part I of IPC, could have been taken into consideration if one or two blows would have been attributed by them to the deceased, but repeatedly very brutal and fatal blows were dealt by appellant Ishfaque to the deceased and when Ishfaque spared the deceased and deceased became seriously injured and took shelter of a railing which was embedded nearby a shop at that juncture appellant Sunil also dealt blows of knife to the deceased. We shall in forgoing paragraph would mention how many injuries deceased had suffered which indicates that the intention to kill the deceased was formed at the spot only and both the appellants shared their common intention to kill the deceased which was developed at the spot. 18. The act of appellants and their state of mind became just like devil as said by Lord Shrikrishna in Chapter 2 of Bhagvat Geeta: (Matter in other language) 19. 18. The act of appellants and their state of mind became just like devil as said by Lord Shrikrishna in Chapter 2 of Bhagvat Geeta: (Matter in other language) 19. On bare perusal of testimony of complainant Annu Mandre (PW 4), we find that although at the initial stage of the crime there was no intention of the appellants to kill the deceased, but when complainant Annu Mandre was being assaulted by appellant Ishfaque and to save the life of his friend by keeping the verdict of myth of Ved, which we have quoted in para 16 hereinabove, and to save a life of a human by keeping humanity alive, the deceased intervened, appellants Ishfaque and Sunil by keeping aside and completely ignoring the humanity, at the spot made an intention to kill the deceased and to give positive result to their intention to kill the deceased, firstly appellant Ishfaque starting giving brutal blows of knife mercilessly to the deceased just like a butcher and the very first blow was dealt on the chest region and the knife blow was so forcefully dealt with that almost the entire blade of the knife pierced the internal organs and chopped the lung. The depth was 16 cm which indicates the intention of appellant Ishfaque to kill the deceased. The act of humanity and mankind of the deceased saving the life of his friend Annu Mandre was not at all matching to the nature of appellant Ishphaque, and therefore, at the spot, his intention to kill the deceased was developed and for this reason, even after causing very brutal and fatal first blow on the chest, he also gave some more repeated blows of knife to the deceased. It is borne out from the testimony of autopsy surgeon Dr. J. N. Soni (PW 2) that apart from chopping of the lung of the deceased, the live was also cut as the fourth injury was found to be 11 cm deep, and hence, according to us, co-appellant Ishphaque committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. 20. It is borne out from the testimony of autopsy surgeon Dr. J. N. Soni (PW 2) that apart from chopping of the lung of the deceased, the live was also cut as the fourth injury was found to be 11 cm deep, and hence, according to us, co-appellant Ishphaque committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. 20. The role of appellant Sunil might have been diluted if after sustaining umpteen injuries caused by co-appellant Ishfaque to the deceased, he would not have caused any injury to the deceased, but after giving several brutal blows of knife by Ishphaque to the deceased, the agony did not come to an end and it has come in the testimony of complainant Annu Mandre that appellant Sunil also dealt blows by knife to the deceased after appellant Ishfaque stopped giving the blows and when the deceased was taking shelter of the railing of a shop, and therefore, according to us., he also shared common intention alongwith co-appellant Ishphaque to kill the deceased, 21. The object of framing Section 34 of IPC is that accomplice is also equally responsible if he has shared his common intention with other accused and in that case he would also be liable to be treated in the same manner as if the said act would have been done by him alone. The primary object enacting Section 34 of IPC is to prevent miscarriage of justice in cases where all are responsible for the offence which has been committed in furtherance of common intention. Looking to the plain language of Section 34 of IPC, it reveals that the essence of this section is simultaneous consensus of the mind of persons participating in the (criminal action to bring out a particular result and such consensus can be developed at the spot. 22. Looking to the plain language of Section 34 of IPC, it reveals that the essence of this section is simultaneous consensus of the mind of persons participating in the (criminal action to bring out a particular result and such consensus can be developed at the spot. 22. It would be relevant to mention here that appellant-Sunil shared his common intention to kill the deceased with appellant Ishfaque since after stopping the blows of knife by appellant Ishphaque when the deceased became seriously injured and in order to take, rest and to get rid of the pains of the injury, deceased took shelter of a railing of a shop, at that juncture appellant Sunil caused knife blows to him and therefore, it is as clear like a noon day clear like a noon that appellant Sunil shared his common intention to kill the deceased with appellant Ishphaque. According to us, Section of IPC embodies commonsense principle that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. In the present case, appellant Sunil combined himself with appellant Ishphaque in killing the deceased by causing injuries in such a manner by knife and was knowing that the. result of his act would be that if for some reason the deceased would not the on account of causing injuries by appellant Ishphaque, certainly by the blows of knife given by him, his life would come to an end and this type of his act proves that he shared his common intention with appellant Ishphaque to kill the deceased. 23. We do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Pateria learned counsel for appellant Sunil that the evidence of Rajeev (PW 9) saying that co-accused Dileep caught hold of the deceased and Ishfaque caused injuries, not only somersaults the entire case of prosecution but also dismantle the testimony of complainant Annu Mandre (PW 4). At the first glance the contention appears to be quite attractive but on deeper scrutiny we find it to be devoid of any substance for the simple reason that this is a material omission and it has been confronted to this witness in his cross-examination and this fact has not been stated by him in his case diary statement (Ex.D 7) and hence we cannot accept the said argument. 24. 24. It would be condign to x-ray the testimony of autopsy surgeon Dr. J.N. Soni (PW 2) and his postmortem report (Ex.P 4) in which the doctor has found following injuries on the person of the deceased, they are: (i) Stab wound on left side of chest 16 cm below the shoulder tip 2.5 cm x 1 cm. vertical, upper end sharply cut and lower end wide. It extends inside the thoracic cavity 5th inter costal space and cut the left lung 9 cm deep. (ii) Stab wound on right side flank just below the sub-costal margin 1.5 x 0.5 cm obliquely transverse, anterior end slight lower and sharply cut. It extends in abdominal cavity given cut to the liver 8 cm deep. (iii) Stab wound 0.5 cm below injury No.2. 2 x 0.5 cm anterior end sharply cut, obliquely transverse, extends in liver, 9 cm deep. (iv) Stab wound 1.5 cm above and 1 cm anterior to mid of upper two wounds 2 x 1 cm, anterior margin sharply cut, extends in liver 11 cm. (v) Stab wound 2 cm below injury No. 4. 1.5 x 1 cm slicing on lower border, anterior end sharp 9 cm deep in liver. (vi) Stab wound 7 cm medial to injury No.2, 2.5 x 1 cm medial end sharply cut transversely placed slicing on lower border 3 cm deep in muscles. (vii) Stab wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm, 1 cm above the 7th cervical on nape of neck mid line transverse slicing on lower border 4 cm deep. (viii) Incised wound 6 cm above the sub-costal margin on back and slight left to mid line obliquely transverse lower end on right side 2.5 x 1 cm x 1cm deep. According to the autopsy surgeon, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of thoraco abdominal injury. 25. Much has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of Devendra (PW7) is not to be relied upon as he was declared hostile, but on close scrutiny of his testimony, we find that on a particular point only he was declared hostile and on the material points he has supported the case of prosecution. 25. Much has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of Devendra (PW7) is not to be relied upon as he was declared hostile, but on close scrutiny of his testimony, we find that on a particular point only he was declared hostile and on the material points he has supported the case of prosecution. Even otherwise, there is unimpeachable testimony of complainant Annu Mandre (PW4) accusing both the appellants and saying that how and in what manner and fashion the brutal blows of knives were dealt by the appellants. 26. So far as the contention of Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for appellant Ishfaque that there is contradictory statement in the FIR (Ex.P11) and in the testimony of complainant Annu Mandre (PW4) is concerned, suffice it to say that true in the FIR it has been stated that he alongwith Satish and Devendra brought the deceased to the hospital first and after declaring the deceased to be dead by the doctors, by keeping the dead-body in the mortuary he has come to lodge the report and in the court statement he has stated that first of all the deceased was brought to the police station and when he was lodging the report, the deceased was sent to the hospital, but if cross-examination para 17 of this witness is considered in proper perspective. it would reveal that he is clarifying the position by saying that the deceased was brought in the hospital and on being inquired by the doctor whether the matter has been informed to the police or not, this witness left the deceased in the Hospital in the custody of Rajeev, Satish and Devendra and he came to the Police Station in an auto-rickshaw to lodge the report, and therefore, according to us, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. 27. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this appeal as well as connected Criminal Appeal No.82/2002. Hence, this appeal and connected Criminal Appeal No. 82/2002, Ishfaque v. State of M.P., are dismissed.