ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.03.2019 ("impugned judgment") passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hub ("trial Court"), whereby the private respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge in FIR No. 241 of 2018, lodged with Police Station Hub City District Lasbela, under sections 376, 380, P .P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant namely Fayyaz Ahmed lodged FIR No.241 of 2018 with Police Station Hub City, alleging therein that he was working in Naeem Hotel as labourer for his livelihood. On 6th May, 2018 he along with his son set out for work, leaving his daughter in law (Abida Parveen) and two daughters (Mst. Iqra and Mst. Razia Bibi) behind at home. He returned back home in the evening time, his elder daughter Iqra disclosed that two persons namely Basharat and Saadat entered into house and forcibly committed Zina with her and they also took away amount of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two lac) which was kept for the marriage of his daughters.
As per complainant the SHO Police Station was reluctant to lodge FIR, therefore he filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. before the Justice of Peace, which was accepted, and on the order of Justice of Peace, the police lodged the referred FIR.
3. Pursuant to above FIR, investigation of the case was carried out. The Investigating officer recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses, obtained medical certificate and on completio n of investigation, submitted the challan in the trial court. The prosecution produced six witnesses before the trial court. On conclusion of prosecution witnesses. respondents/accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They did not profess to record their statements on oath as envisages under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., however they produced one witness as DW-1. On completion of trial, the trial court acquitted the private respondents/accused of the charge under sections 376, 380, 34, P .P.C. vide impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial court while recording the acquittal in favour of accused/respondents has not at all considered the evidence produced by the prosecution and has arrived at a conclusion which is contrary to material available on record. The prosecution witnesses are corroborated each even the medical certificate corroborate the version of victim, but the trial court without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective recorded acquitted in favour of the private respondents. The impugned judgment suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence. Thus the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside and accused/private respondents are required to be punished in accordance with Law .
5. Heard. Record perused. We have analyzed the prosecution evidence from all angle, but we found ourselves unable to agree with prosecution evidence, rather it has been observed that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court in favour of accused/respondents is based upon deep and proper appreciation of evidence. The case of prosecution is doubtful. The complainant reported the matter to police with delay without explanation and as per record the FIR has been lodged on an order of the Justice of peace on 22.5.2018. The record reveals that the time of occurrence has not been mentioned, and as per complainant they reached at home on fateful day i.e. 6.5.2018 and at evening, his daughter narrated story to him, thus the question arises when the daughter told him the story at evening then why the matter was not reported promptly . The consultation and deliberation cannot be ruled out. Any delay in lodging of FIR shakes the very foundation of the prosecution case. The Hon'ble apex court did not condone delay of two hours as held in the case of Mehmood Ahmed v . The State 1995 SCMR 127 .
6. Now adverting to another aspect of the case, the prosecution has produced victim Mst. Iqra as PW-2. She stated that the accused/respondents are sons of her father's sister . She further stated that the sister of accused/respondents Abida was her sister in law and she is living at Karachi with her parents. The said witness during cross-examination in reply to question stated that: 18-5-2018 {{URDU TEXT}} 18 -5 -2018 {{URDU TEXT}}
7. PW-1 complainant stated that he lodged FIR on 22.5.2018, if the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 are taken in juxtaposition, the same are contradictory to each other , if FIR is lodged on 22.5.2018 how the statement of victim under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded prior to lodging FIR. As per record the statement of victim under section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 6.5.2018, after delay of 14 days without any cogent reasons. The MLC did not support the prosecution version. The victim has been examined on 22.5.2018. As per PW-4 Dr. Ujala Naseer the Hymen was rupture. No marks of violence were found on the body of PW-2. PW-4 during cross-examination stated that for so many reasons the hymen could be ruptured.
8. It is an admitted principle of natural justice, if the case of prosecution is doubtful benefit of doubt goes to accused as matter of right not as matter of grace.
9. The statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be termed consistent or solid evidence and false implication of the accused/respondents cannot be ruled out. Neither the trouser (shalwar ) of victim was given to prosecution nor any money was recovered from the accused/respondents. It is settled principle of law that the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because acquittal recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction carries double presumption of innocence and very strong reasons are required to discharge such presumption.
If the entire prosecution evidence is taken into consideration together it would become crystal clear that the entire prosecution evidence is not solid nor consistent against the accused/respondents connecting them with the commission of the alleged offence. The trial court after proper appraisal of evidence in its true perspective has rightly acquitted the accused/respondents of the charge. It is settled law that the order of acquittal could not be interfered unless the acquittal is ordinary , capricious, fanciful and against the record. In the instant case the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is neithe r arbitrary nor contrary to the evidence on record, warranting interference by this court.
For the above reasons the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine .