The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiating charges beyond reasonable doubt and highlights the need for reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases.

S.N.Pathak, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-8-1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-l, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 1984. Appellants Shamsher Ram and Lallan Ram alias Lalan Ram were convicted u/s. 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years. They were further convicted under Secs. 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years. These two appellants were further convicted and sentenced under Sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo R.I. for six months. All the sentences awarded against them were directed to run concurrently. The appellant Dinesh Ram was convicted u/s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. He was further convicted u/s. 148 of the lPC. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, his sentences running concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution was projected through the fardbeyan of one Manogi Ram, who alleged in his fardbeyan (Ext-4), that on 7-6-1978, he came to Bihta by a Mini Bus and alighted from the Bus to the south of the Railway Gumuti. Suddenly his villager Shamsher Ram, Lallan Ram along with one unknown person surrounded him and forcibly made him sit on a Scooter. Subsequently, the pillion was taken to the informants village, Dalawarpur, and during the course of this kidnapping, the informant was seated in the middle of the vehicle, one person was sitting on his front and one person was sitting behind him, having a tight grip of his waist The informant was taken to the house of Shamsher Ram where Lallan Ram and others, as named in the fardbeyan including Dinesh Ram, subjected him to fisting and slapping. During the course of this assault, the informant cried out for help, but nobody came to his rescue. Dinesh Ram dealt Tangi blow which resulted in the chopping off of his left leg (perhaps from near the knee). The informant then fell unconscious. He was carried to the Bihta Hospital from where he was referred to the P.M.C.H. The accused-appellants have taken the defence of false implication on account of enmity.

3. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses. PW-8 Onkar Nath Jaiswal was the orthopaedic surgeon who stated that on 7-6-1978 he was posted in the P.M.C.H. when one Manogi Ram was brought to the hospital. His felt leg was found to be amputated. He treated that patient and noted down the treatment in the S.O.D. Book. The entry in the S.O.D. Book in the P.M.C.H. having reference to Manogi Ram under E.O. No. 4153 was Exhibited (Ext.-6), but all the statements in this entry referred to the Drugs and Medicines which the doctor prescribed for Manogi Ram. There is no reference to any injury except that the patient had his left leg amputated, neither the pulse nor B.P. of the patient was mentioned. In the cross-examination, this doctor admitted that there is no mention of injury, the patient had sustained, in the S.O.D. Book. He further admitted had there been any injury report before him, he would have mentioned description of the injury and the weapon with which the injuries were caused upon the patient. The aforesaid statements of this doctor have shrouded the whole case of the prosecution in mystery. As per the case of the prosecution, Manogi Ram was first brought to the Bihta Hospital for his treatment where the doctor immediately referred him to the P.M.C.H., Patna after giving him first aid. This doctor was examined in Court as P.W. 4, who had seen the patient Manogi Ram, when he had been brought to his hospital on 7-6-1978 at 2.10 p.m. This doctor referred to the entry in the register of his hospital. This was entry No. 5971 of Out Door patient. This doctor said that this entry was written by him, but this entry perhaps was the closing entry of 7-6-1978 at page 54 (Ext-1). Under the Entry No. 5917 the name of Manogi Ram was written in Hind language and the doctor P.W. 4, who said that he had written th