ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---This judgment disposes of Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.290 of 2017 filed by the appellants Syed Zahir Shah and Dawood Shah, against the judgment dated 28th August 2017 (hereinafter referred as, "the impugned judgment") passed by learned Judicial Magistrate- MFC Karezat at Khanozai (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court" ), whereby the accused (respondents) namely Hasibullah alias Sabo, Muhammad Akram, Ejaz-ul-Haq, Rehmatullah, Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, Sami-ullah, Muhammad Asghar , Najeebullah, Asmatullah, Kalla Khan and Ikramullah, were acquitted of the charge, under sections 365, 147, 148, 149, P .P.C.
2. Facts of the case are that on 16th March 2017, the complainant Syed Zahir Shah, lodged FIR No.01/2017 at Levies Thana Karezat Khanozai District Pishin, under above mentioned offence, with the allegations that on the day of occurrence i.e. 15th March 2017 his son Dawood Shah was making in order his motorcycle nearby the cabin shaped petrol pump at Rod Mullazai, when the accused persons namely Ikram, Muhammad Akram, Rehmatullah, Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, Sabo, Samiullah, Ejaz Ahmed, Muhammad Asghar and Najeebullah being armed with weapons arrived there in two Kabuli vehicles and on gun point tied the hands and feet of his son, forcibly alighted him in a vehicle and took (abducted) him along with them and so far the whereabouts of his son are not known.
3. In pursuance of above FIR, investigation was carried out and the accused (respondents) were challaned before the trial Court, who indicated the charge, which was denied and the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge produced six witnesses.
Thereafter , the accused (respondents) were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. However , they neither recorded their statement on oath nor produced any witness in their defence. On conclusion of trial and after hearing arguments, the trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons from the charge, vide impugned judgement dated 28th August 2017. Whereafter , instant appeal has been filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their valuab le assistance. Perusal of record justifies the impugned judgement of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court in favour of accused (respondents). The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge has produced the evidence of six (06) witnesses, but the same are contradictory to each other and even the same are based upon hearsay evidence and the witnesses have also improved from their earlier depositions. However , before parting with the statements of all the witnesses, it would be necessary to mention here that the FIR was lodged after unexplained delay of 25-hours.
According to fard-e-bayan Ex.P/1-A, the alleged incident was taken place on 15 March 2017 at about 4.30 p.m., but after the said incident the complainant kept silent on the said date by not bringing the law into motion rather on the following day at about 5.30 p.m. he approached the Tehsildar Karezat and lodged the FIR. The delay so occasioned in lodging the FIR has not been justifiably explained rather it shows the unnatural conduct of the complainant as his son was abducted by number of accused persons and his life was also in danger , but the FIR was not lodged promptly . Non-reporting the incident immediately to the law enforcing agencies has rendered the entire case of prosecution as doubtful as it appears that the complainant after consultation and deliberation has nominated number of accused persons in the crime.
5. The statement of PW-1 Zahir Shah transpires that he has made certain contradictions and dishonest improvements from his earlier deposition contained in his fard-e-bayan Ex.P/1-A . The Court statement of PW-1 shows that on the day of occurrence he was present in his house when a boy came to his house and told him to come to shop, where the shopkeeper told him that 10/11 persons in two vehicles came over there and after torturing abducted his son. According to PW-1 thereafter he came back to his house and waited till 10.00 p.m., whereafter he lodged the report at Thana Khanozai and in his report he nominat ed accused Akram, Kala Khan, Sabo, Ikram, Ehsanullah, Mujeeb, Ejaz and the remaining accused persons. PW-1 also did not identify the accused Rehmatullah, Asghar Khan, Samiullah and Asmatullah with their names.
6. It has been observed that though the contents of fard-e-bayan Ex.P/1 -A are silent with regard to source of information of the incident received by complainant, but while making improvement in his Court statement, PW-1 has mentioned that a boy came to his house and asked him to come to shop and the shopkeeper informed him about the incident that 10/11 persons in two vehicles came and after torturing abducted his son. Even otherwise, the Court statement of PW did not sugges t the name of shopkeeper , who informed him about the incident and even the said shopkeeper had simply stated him that 10/11 persons abducted his son without disclosing the names of culprits. Now question arises that if the complainant had not witnessed the crime directly and even the sole eye- witness of the occurrence also did not disclose the names of culprits, then as to how the complainant nominated the accused persons. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the delay of 25- hoerrs so occasioned in lodging the FIR was merely due to the reasons to make consultation to nominate the whole family of the accused party . It is surprising that both the accused and the complainant party were known to each other prior to incident and accordingly the complainant nominated the accused Rehmatullah, Asghar Khan, Samiullah and Asmatullah in his fard-e-bayan, but he did not identify them in the Court.
7. The statement of PW-1 Abdul Zahir was contradicted by the shopkeeper Samiullah, who appeared as PW-2 and stated that about two months ago he was present in his shop when a boy came to his shop and stated that few people have abducted Dawood Shah and thereafter the said child went to the house of PW-1 and informed him about the incident. PW-2 made his ignorance with regard to the names of accused persons. The statement of PW-2 fully negates tile statement of PW-1, who had claimed that he was informed about the incident by PW-2. Be that as it may , the source of information. about the names of the culprits involved in the crime has not been proved.
8. The statement of PW-3 Sabir Shah shows that he is the brother of abductee Dawood Shah, however , the fact remains that neither at the relevant time he was present at the place of occurrence nor witnessed the crime directly , rather as per own statement of PW-3 he was in Quetta, when receipt information about the incident and thereafter he came to Khanozai. Thus, the statement of this witness is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
9. The alleged abductee Syed Dawood Shah appeared as PW-4 and contradicted the statements of remaining witnesses. The alleged abductee narrated the whole story with regard to his abduction by the nominated accused persons and it has specially been stated after three days of incident the nominated accused persons handed overth him to Noor Shah, Malik Jamil and Habibullah. However , none of the above three witnesses were associated in the investigation or produced in the trial Court to affirm the statement of PW-4. According to PW-4 the accused persons have also filmed his naked video, however , in his cross-examination he admitted that he himself did not watch the said video rather he heard about the same and the said video was seen by Gul Zaman, Muhammad Rasool and Nom Shah. Again the said witnesses were not associated in the investigation in order to affirm the statement of PW-4 that his naked video was filmed. The confessional statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of the PW-4 was recorded by PW-5 Izhar Ahmed, Judicial Magistrate, wherein the alleged abductee has stated that in the attempt of his abduction he succeeded in making his escape good from the clutches of the accused persons and through mountain passage he reached Muslim Bagh and stayed with his friend for three days and, thereafter they came to Tehsildar , where he informed the Tehsildar that the accused persons wanted to kill him and they have not abducted him.
10. The comparison of confessional statement of abductee qua, his Court statement fully contradicts each other . In the court statement he implicated the accused (respondents) in the commission of crime, while in his confessional statement he negates the whole case of prosecution that no incident of abduction was taken place at all rather the accused (respondents) came at the place of incident to commit his murder . Furthermore, the alleged abdcutee was not recovered by the Law Enforcing Agency rather after three days of his disappearance he came on picture on 18th March 2017 and after, his revelation he recorded his confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate, wherein he negated the whole prosecution case and exonerated all the accused persons.
11. It has also been observed that PW-4 in his Court statement has alleged that the accused handed over his possession to the witnesses namely Noor Shah, Malik Jamil and Habibullah. It has also been alleged by the PW-4 that during his detention, the accused (respondents) have also filmed his naked video, which was seen by Gul Zaman, Muhammad Rasool and Noor Shah. It has been observed that the said witnesses are most important and necessary witnesses to corroborate the case of prosecution, who have allegedly not only received the custody of the abdcutee from the accused persons , but also seen the naked video of the abdcutee, but none of the said witnesses neither associated in the investigation nor produced in the Court. There is no explanation on the part of prosecution that as to why the evidence of these witnesses was withheld, therefore, a presumption under Illustration (g) of Article 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 can fairly be drawn that had the said witness been examined in the Court their evidence would have been un-favourable to the prosecution. Although, the prosecution was not bound to produce each and every witness. but if the prosecution fails to produce such witnesses who are central figure and the entire story revolved around them, then the prosecution story would become doubtful.
12. The overall reappraisal of prosecution evidence is suggestive of the fact that the prosecution has absolutely failed to produce any convincing, confidence inspiring or direct evidence against the accused (respondents) either establishing the abduction of abductee Dawood Shah or filming his naked video. No medical evidence has also been produced to establish that he was tortured by the accused (respondents). Admittedly , the prosecution had badly failed to establish the charge against the accused (respondents) beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
The case of prosecution is doubtful and the learned trial Court while delivering the impugned judgement of acquittal has rightly extended the benefits of such doubts in favour of the accused (resp ondents) and rightly they were acquitted of the charge. It is well settled principle of law that accused after acquittal earns the presumption of double innocence and the acquittal order s are not interfered with, until and unless it is proved on record that the same is perverse, contrary to record, fanciful and not sustainable, however , the perusal of record and in view of discussion made hereinabove it is clear that the impugned judgment is neither perverse, fanciful nor ridiculous or contrary to record rather the same is based on proper appraisal of material availab le on record and is not open for interfere by this Court.
For the above reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.