' ASIF,SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Although the main appeal is barred by time yet the learned counsel for the appellant has requested that the merits of the appeal may also be adverted to before deciding the appellant's miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal.
2. Through the accompanying appeal the appellant has called in question the judgment dated 3- 4-2003 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakpattan Sharif whereby respondents Nos.2 to 6 were acquitted of the charge in case F.I.R. No,316 registered at Police Station Chak Baidi, District Pakpattan Sharif on 6-11-1994 for offences under sections 337-A(i)/ 337-F(i)/ 337-F(ii)/ 337-F(v)/148/149, P.P.C. It has been maintained by the learned counsel for the appellant that sufficient incriminatory evidence was available on the record establishing culpability of respondents Nos.2 to 6 and, therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the said respondents.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the record of the learned trial Court which is available before this Court today it has straightaway been observed by me that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of two days. After assessing and evaluating the evidence available on the record the learned trial Court had found that time of the alleged occurrence deposed by the eyewitnesses was contradicted by the medical evidence; two independent eyewitnesses who were available at the place of occurrence had not been produced by the prosecution; the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution during the trial were closely related to each other; for various reasons found on the record the claimed presence of the complainant at the place of the occurrence at the relevant time was quite doubtful and his conduct was also improbable and unnatural; the statements of the eyewitnesses were replete with material contradictions qua the date of reporting the matter to the police as well as regarding the place where the matter was reported to the police; both the recovery witnesses had not supported the prosecution's case; the cross-version advanced by the accused party had not been properly investigated by the local police; the X-ray reports regarding the injuries sustained by the victims had not been produced on the record; no Radiologist had been produced by the prosecution; the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account qua the nature and number of injuries; the statement made by P.W.8. Showed that it was the complainant party which was the aggressor; and, therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondents Nos.2 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The reasons advanced by the learned trial Court for recording the acquittal of respondents Nos.
2 to 6 have not been found by me to be either arbitrary or perverse and the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are such that any reasonable Court could have arrived at the same upon a fair assessm ent of the evidence available on the record. Apart from that the occurrence in this case had taken place way back in the year, 1994 and B respondents Nos.2 to 6 had earned their acquittal on the merits of the case in the year, 2003, i.e, after a trial spanning over a period of about nine years. After the acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 6 one more year have already gone by. In these circumstances the impugned acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 6 by the learned trial Court has not been found by me to be open to any legitimate exception or calling for interference by this Court at such a stage.
5. The appeal filed by the appellant is even otherwise barred by time and the reason advanced in the miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of delay is neither acceptable nor the same is supported by any material so as to establish its correctness.
6. For what has been discussed above Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No,641 of 2003 are dismissed.