' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Mina Gul, complainant/appellant preferred this appeal under section 417(2-A) Cr.P.C. Against the acquittal judgment dated 13-1-2013 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hangu acquitted respondents No.1 and 2 charged through F.I.R. No.284 dated 28-8-2011 under sections 302/324/34 P.P.C./512 Cr.P.C. Police Station Thall.
2. Briefly, the facts of the appeal are that a report was lodged vide murasila by the complainant/appellant to the effect that on the eventful day at about 1530 hours, the complainant along with his brothers Zaman Gul and Naseeb Gul (deceased) were on the way back towards their home in a Suzuki driven by one Hameed driver. When reached at the place of occurrence, the acquitted accused along with absconding co-accused Muhammad Rafique and Azmat Khan, who all were duly armed with deadly weapon, on seeing them made indiscriminate firing at them. As a result, whereof, Nasib Gul deceased who was boarded in front seat, got hit and died at the spot, Hameed driver of the Suzuki also sustained body injury, while the complainant and his brother Zaman Gul who were boarded on the roof top of the Suzuki, escaped unhurt. After arrest of the respondents/acquitted accused, they were formally interrogated by the local police and after completion of challan, the same was sent to the Court for trial.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses and on conclusion of trial both the respondents were acquitted of the charges through impugned judgment dated 3-1-2013.
4. The learned counsel for "the appellant/complainant 'contended that the respondents were directly charged along with absconding co-accused for committing murder of the deceased; that it was a daylight occurrence and the accused was already known to the complainant party; that the driver of the Suzuki had also sustained injuries with the firing of the accused; that the accused remained absconder for a considerable time and lastly argued that the motive of previous blood feud enmity existed between the parties.
' Arguments heard and record perused-
5. We have noticed that four persons were charged for the murder of deceased Naseeb Gul and no specific role had been 'attributed to any of the accused for charge of effective firing upon the deceased. It has also been noticed that only independent witness in the present case was injured Hameed, the driver of the Suzuki who sustained injury at the spot. It is very astonishing to note that said Hameed has not been produced by the prosecution in order to establish their case. We have also noticed that the appellant along with Zaman Gul P.W.10 were also accompanying the deceased in the same Suzuki, rather they were on the roof top of the Suzuki at the time of occurrence and were exposed to the assailants and no reason was shown how they get escaped unhurt when they were unarmed and having blood feud enmity with the assailants as alleged by them. There are material contradictions in between the statements of complainant and the alleged eye witness P. W.10, regarding time of occurrence and the manner in which occurrence took place. It is apparent on the record that Suzuki driver was examined as D.W.1 who has not supported the version and stance taken by the complainant, rather as per his statement the Suzuki was hired by Nasib Gul deceased who was accompanied by two ladies and three kids and no one beside them was present in the Suzuki. He further negated the fact that the complainant and P.W.10 were accompanying them at the time of occurrence. He never charged the acquitted accused for the commission of the offence. In the present case, no independent witness from the locality supported the version of the complainant rather from the available record it reflects that neither the complainant nor P.W.10 were accompanying deceased at the time of incident. There is unexplained delay of 2 1/2 hours for lodging the report and specially when the vehicle was available with the complainant and there was a functional road approaching to the Police Station.
6. It is well-settled that the court of appeal should be more conscious in evaluating evidence in case of hearing appeal against acquittal as against the case, where appeal against conviction is heard. More weight is given to the judgment of acquittal as double presumption of innocence is attached with the case of hearing appeal against acquittal , also the parameters for appraising evidence while hearing appeal against acquittal are totally different from that of hearing appeal against conviction.
' We are not persuaded by contention of the learned A.A.G. That the respondents remained absconders thus this appeal deserves to be admitted and allowed on this score alone. It is by now settled that abscondance per se is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused. ' ln view what has been discussed above, this appeal is without any substance and meritless, hence dismissed in limine.