1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CH., J.--- Briefly the facts are that on 1st February, 1994, Noor Bakhsh Hawaldar Levies, informed the Assistant Commissioner, Nushki that two dead bodies of Muhammad Afzal son of Doran and Mulla Niaz Muhammad son of Neik Muhammad, have been brought from village of Sardar Abdul Karim. He also informed that on his reaching there, inhabitants of village told him that they had died in a fight. Accordingly F.I.R. No,2 of 1994 under section 302, P.P.C. Was registered on the following day. It appears that on same day, appellant and Muhammad Yakub, the legal heirs of both the deceased, lodged a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner, nominating as many as seven persons to be accused, involved in commission of offence. Surprisingly on the following day, yet another application was submitted with the request that in the list of accused persons, names of two more persons be also added. In the meanwhile investigation of the case was entrusted to Muhammad Jan, Naib Tehsildar, Chagai, who at that time was not posted at Nushki. The Investigation Officer arrested some of the respondents and on completion of investigation, submitted challan against as many as 13 persons, including the one, who was declared absconder. As respondents did not plead guilty to the charge, therefore, prosecution led evidence of eight persons, including P.Ws. Bismillah, Amir Muhammad, Sher Muhammad, Karim Bakhsh' and Abdul Rahim, statedly to be the eye-witnesses. On completion of trial, vide judgment, dated 25th November, 1996, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nushki, acquitted all the respondents from the charge. As such, instant appeal has been preferred.
2. ' Mr. W.N. Kohli, learned counsel appeared on behalf of appellant, whereas Mr. Abdul Karim Khan Yousafzai, Advocate, represented the Advocate-General, notice to whom was given for assisting the Court.
3. ' Appellant's counsel, contended that all the eye-witnesses have furnished strong incriminating evidence against respondents, but the trial Court has discarded their statements without cogent reasons.
4. ' It is noteworthy that the eye-witnesses, whose names have been mentioned hereinabove were examined on 12th February, 1994, by the Investigating Officer as they were produced by prosecution witness Dawood Shah (not produced). We enquired from learned counsel as to why Dawood Shah or persons whose name was taken by him in his own statement i,e, Sufi Obaidullah was not examined. He could not answer satisfactorily.
5. ' It was next enquired from learned counsel that how the testimony of eye-witnesses can be considered trustworthy, when they have deposed against respondents, after about ten days from incident and no explanation has been offered by the Investigating Officer during his cross- examination in recording their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Promptly. Learned counsel tried to canvass that probably appellants were not free to produce these witnesses before the Investigating Officer immediately after happening of occurrence, as they were busy in receiving "Fatiah". We may observe here that his this plea is not supported by any evidence on record. In addition to this, it is also to be borne in mind that as for as Dawood Shah and Obaidullah are concerned, they were examined on 4th February, 1994, therefore, question would be that what was the impediment in the way of appellant for not producing other witnesses on that very day, if at all they had seen the incident. As such, we are inclined to conclude that actually these persons were set up as prosecution witnesses subsequently to involve all the respondents in commission of offence, because as for as Dawood Shah and Obaidullah are concerned, even in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. They have not involved to all respondents nor had ascribed any specific role to them, for participating in commission of offence. Since they both have not been produced, therefore, their statements cannot be considered, except making reference to draw inference that prosecution had withheld the best kind of evidence and produced other witnesses who actually had not seen the incident, as no satisfactory explanation is coming forward that why they kept quiet for a period of ten days. In this behalf, the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment of Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State 1993 SCM R 550, has held that statements recorded by police after delay and without explanation are to be ruled out of consideration.
6. ' Besides it, with the assistance of learned counsel for appellant, we have independently assessed the evidence of all eye-witnesses and we are of the opinion that they had not furnished consistent and confidence inspiring evidence, as lot of improvements were made by them in their deposition, comparing to their statements which they had earlier made before the Investigating Officer.
7. Inasmuch as P.W. Bismillah admitted that in his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement, he had not named the deceased persons, therefore, it would mean that he had no knowledge that who had died in the incident, being witnessed by him. Learned trial Judge had thoroughly scrutinized the evidence of prosecution and rightly came to the conclusion that no case is made out for warranting conviction. ' it is known principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is exonerated of the charge by a competent Court, he enjoys presumption of double innocence in his favour, therefore, interference in an acquittal order can only be made, if the trial Court has disregarded material evidence or misread the evidence or received incriminating evidence illegally, as it has been held in the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamma Raz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11.
8. ' On careful consideration of impugned judgment, we are inclined to hold that neither the available evidence has been disregarded nor it has been misread or received illegally by trial Court, therefore, no interference is called for.
9. ' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in appeal, which is dismissed in limine.