ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.05.201 9 ("impugned judgment") passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasirabad at Dera Murad Jamali ("trial Court "), whereby the private respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge in FIR No. 20 of 2015, lodged with Police Station Baba Kot, under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, P .P. C .
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR No.20/2015, on the report of the complainant namely Waqas Ahmed was lodged on 13.08.2015 at Police Station, Baba Kot to the effect that on the fateful day at about 06:00 a.m. when he along with his brother Waqar Ahmed and relative Dilshad Ahmed were coming towards their house from Jhal Magsi and reached at Mouza Kanda Tehsil Baba Kot on Kacha track, suddenly six persons, armed with deadly weapons appeared on three motorcycles. They identified four persons as Arshad, Javed, Shahid and Muhammad Iqbal while could not identify rest of the two persons. The accused persons intercepted their way held them stopped and forcibly drag out his brother Waqar Ahmed from driving seat of the vehicle, advanced threats that not to alight from vehicle otherwise they would kill them. Due to fear they did not alight from the vehicle and accused persons took Waqar Ahmed to some distance away and accused Shahid instructed the accused Arshad to kill Waqar then accused Arshad opened fire at his brother , as a result of which his brother died at the spot.
Thereafter , accused persons flee away from the spot on motorcycles. The motive behind the incident is old enmity between the parties. Hence the instant case was registered.
3. After formal investigation the challan was submitted before the trial Court. The charge was framed and read over to the respondents/accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the persecution produced two witnesses namely PW-1 Waqas Ahmed and PW-2 Dilshad, meanw hile the respondents/ accused filed an application under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the trial Court allowed the application under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. and acquitted the accused/respondents of the charge vide impugned judgment as mentioned hereinabove.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the previous round of trial on arrest of co-accused namely Muhammad Iqbal and Javed Ahmed, the prosecution had produced as many as ten witnesses including the Investigating officer of the case. Later on the trial Court vide order dated 9th March, 2016, acquitted both the co-accused of the charge while allowing an application under Section 265-K, Cr .P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has produced ocular witnesses as well as circumstantial witnesses, which connects the accused with the commission of the offence. The trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence and without any justification discarded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused/respondents on an application under Section 265-K Cr.P.C; that the order of the trial Court is against the principle of natural justice, even otherwise the complainant and the PW-2 has fully implicated the accused/ respondents and had assigned specific role to them; that the accused/respondents have failed to discredit the statements of both of the witnesses, as such they were required to. be convicted by the trial Court, thus the impugned order required interference by this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have peruse d the available record minutely .
The perusal of impugned order as well as the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial Court justify the acquittal order recorded in favour of accused/respondents. The prosecut ion has produced two witnesses at the trial Court including the complainant as PW-2. The complainant lodged FIR with delay of seven (07) hours without any plausible explanation. The deliberation and consultation on the part of the complainant cannot be ruled out. In this respect reliance is placed on Mehmood Ahmed and 3 others v. The State (1995 SCMR 127), whereby the Hon' able Supreme Court of Pakistan did not condone the delay of two hours with the following effects: "Delay of two hours in lodging the FIR in the particular circumstances of the case had assumed great significance as the same could be attributed to consultation, taking instructions and calculated ly preparing the report keeping the names of the accused open for roping in such persons whom ultimately the prosecution might wish to implicate.
Non-explanation of the delay in making the report to the police coupled with the improvements and contradictions made by the eye-witnesses in their statements had rendered their testimony doubtful and unreliable which did not inspire confidence."
6. According to PW-1, he along with deceased coming from Jhal Magsi in Surf vehicle were intercepted at 4:30 a.m. by six persons riding on three motorcycles, who forcibly took his brother (deceased) with them; that the accused/respondents shouted loudly and told their companion Arshad to kill him; that on the instruction of Shahed, the accused/respondent Arshad fired upon deceased, as a result whereof he succumbed to injuries; that he went to police station by foot. The complainant has not explained as to why in presence of surf vehicle he proceeded to Police Station by foot for lodging the FIR. The conduct of complainant cannot attract to the prudent mind. The conduct of complainant does not attract to a prudent mind.
7. The conduct of complainant reveals that he was neither present at the spot nor accompanying with the deceased and other ocular witnesses. From the statement of PW-1, it appears that the dead body was lying in the Surf vehicle and accused had left the said vehicle but the complainant did not bother to take the dead body with him.
From the conduct of complainant it reveals that he did not depose truth and mate rial improvement has been. It is also to be noted that if the complainant was present at the spot, why accused/c ulprits would spare him to give evidence against them. It does not appeal to logic that a person present with his real brother (deceased) would not be injured or killed leaving him for evidence to be hanged. The Hon' able Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2017 SCMR 2002 also discarded such fact and in this respect this Court in the judgment in case title "Muhammad Aril v . The State" reported in (2019 PCr .LJ 337) also held as under: "Similarly , all the witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that the injured Raees Muhammad Hussain is their elder , meaning thereby that all the persons were belonged to the party of injured Raees Muhammad Hussain, thus all the witnesses could also easily be targeted by the accused party , but only the deceased Muhammad Salah and his father Raees Muhammad Hussain were hit and all the remaining witnesses including the brothers of deceased i.e. PW-1 and PW-10 were let free by accused party . The presence of all the witnesses especially the presence of PW-1 and PW-10 being the sons of injured PW-3 at the place of occurrence is absolutely doubtful for the reasons that the complainant/PW -1 along with his brother PW-10 Muhamma d Wafa including the deceased were on the target of the appellant having pistol and Kalashnikov in their hands, but the deceased brother and injured father of the complainant were hit and the complainant along with his brother PW-I0 were let free. It does not appeal to the logic that by killing a person in presence of his real brothers, the appellant would not attempt to cause any injury/kill the prosecution witnesses leaving them for evidence to be hanged."
8. Now adverting to statement of PW-2 Dilshad, who was declared hostile by the prosecution, who did not support the prosecution case even not recognized the accused/respondents facing trial before the trial Court. The statements of both the ocular witnesses are contradictory to each other on material point as well as the prosecution and ocular account is doubtful as per Medico-legal Certificate. The deceased was brought by the police at Hospital, which indicates that the comp lainant was not present at the spot and later on with deliberation and consultation implicated the accused/ respondents. It is also an admitted fact that both the witnesses are close relative of the deceased.
9. Without prejudice to above, even otherwise, the prosecution did not conduct any identification parade of the accused/ respondents, even as per record the empties of 9MM, a blood-stained earth were secured from the place of occurrence on 27th August, 2017, while occurrence has taken place on 13.8.2015. After lodging of FIR, the investigating officer went to the place of occurrence. He has taken into possession Surf vehicle of deceased, dead body of deceased was laying there, prepared site plan, but failed to collect empti es and blood stained earth. It is not possible after 14 days of occurrence on another visit, the investigating officer secured empties of 9MM and blood stained earth, which means the prosecution conducted dishonest investig ation in order to implicate the accused. Even the statement of ocular witness Liaquat, brother of deceased were recorded after 14 days of delay without any plausible reason, which creates doubt in the prosecution case. It is settled principle that order of acquittal shall not be interfered because the presumption of innocence of accu sed is further strengthened by acquittal. The trial Court has passed a well reasoned order , which in absence of misreading and non-reading evidence warrants no interference by this Court.
10. It is settled principle of law that in criminal cases every accused is innocent unless proven guilty and upon acquittal by a Court of competent jurisdiction such presumption attained double presumption of innocence. Very strong and cogent reasons are required to dislodge such presumption. Reliance is placed in (2017 SCMR 1710 ) and (2017 SCMR 2007 ). The appellant has failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the order impugned.
Since there was no possibility of conviction even if the remaining prosecution witnesses were examined, therefore in the circumstances of the case the trial court has rightly exercised the jurisdictio n under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
The findings of acquittal cannot be reversed, upset, except found to be perverse and ridiculous. The trial court has passed a well reasoned judgment, which in absence of misreading and non-reading of evidence warrants no interference by this court.
Thus in view of above, the acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine .