' FAZAL-UR-RAHMAN, J.---This appeal by Syed Khatoon is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Session Judge-V, Quetta dated 9-12-1998, where he acquitted the respondents namely By Muhammad, Amanullah and Mir Ahmad.
2. The brief facts given in the F.I.R. The complainant who is appellant before are that on 30-8-1997 at about 3-00 p.m. Accused/respondents came to Killi Bangulzai took her from the house and after giving beating on the road with hunter and Dandas taken her in Suzuki to the house of their daughter Mst. Shahzadi situated at Browery Road, Quetta. It was also alleged, that she was divorced by accused Baig Muhammad about two months before the occurrence. It was further alleged that she was left in Shahzadi's house in unconscious condition and where after she was taken by her son Sher Muhammad to the hospital. The report of this incident was made vide F.I.R.
Exh.P/1-A on 4-9-1997 at 8-5 p.m. Motive advanced was dispute over marriage of their daughter Mst. Shahzadi with one Ali Muhammad Shahwani. After usual investigation the accused/respondents were sent up to face their trial under section 365/342/34, P.P.C.' read with section 337, A.D.F. Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.
3. In support of its case the prosecution examined seven witnesses. The accused/ respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against them.
4. After examining the evidence on the record the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond, any doubt and expressed himself in the following terms:--- "The prosecution's evidence shows that Exh.P/1-A was lodged after delay of three days. P.W.2 and.
P.W.3 were not present on the spot, they were told about the occurrence by their neighbours. P.W.1 and P.W.3 stated that they took their mother (complainant) to hospital and took her to police station from hospital. The witnesses have contradicted. The motive has been alleged that the dispute arose due to relationship with Ali Muhammad Shahwani. The record is silent about the motive. P.W.5 is the eye-witness but he did not state about beatings given to the complainant by the accused Baig Muhammad and Amanullah. The witness did not mention about the accused Mir Ahmad's presence on the spot. He stated that the complainant was taken to Shahzadi's house in the vehicle. The chains of evidence about claim of kidnapping/abduction of the complainant are missing in the prosecution's case. Confinement is a necessary ingredient. The accused persons had no intention to confine the victim. The circumstantial evidence does not help the prosecution case. The medico-legal report corroborates the injuries caused to the complainant but the same area of simple nature. The complainant failed to prove the allegations made in the F.I.R., that the accused Baig Muhammad stopped her maintenance and pronounced Talaq to her. The allegation made in the Exh.P/1-A are of civil nature. The witnesses have contradicted and shaken and their conduct created doubt. The charge finds no corroboration from the evidence. In the circumstance, the Point No, 1 is resolved in negative."
5. We have heard Mr. Amanullah Khan Kakar, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Noor Muhammad Achakzai, learned Additional Advocate-General for State and Mr. Shah Mir Khattak and Mrs. Iqbal Bano, Advocates who had also filed their Vakalatnama for accused/ respondents.
6. We have also perused the record. We are conscious of the fact that it is an appeal against acquittal where the accused/ respondents are now equipped with double presumption of innocence as held by the superior Courts. As an order of acquittal strengthens the initial presumption of innocence of the accused person, therefore, it can only be interfered by the Court of appeal if it is perverse to evidence or, is based on unreasonable grounds.
7. The medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of used in the occurrence, duration etc. But it the injury, nature of injury, kind of weapon would not connect the accused with the commission of crime. The occurrence is indicated to have occurred on 30-8-1997 at 3-00 p.m. Whereas, according to the P.W. 6 Dr. Sarfraz, Syed Khatoon wife of Baig Muhammad was brought to the casualty department at 8-40 a.m. By Mr. Safdar Hussain, Head Constable of Sariab Police Station. It is pertinent to note that the report was made on 4-9-1997 at 8-5 p.m. And it is not understood as to how she had received injuries prior to occurrence and how she was taken to hospital by Mr. Safdar Hussain, Head Constable of Sariab. Police Station on 30-8-1997 at 8-40 p.m. When neither occurrence had taken place nor the matter was reported to the police then.
P.W.5 Abdul Baqi who is stated to be an eye-witness of the occurrence has not stated about the beating given to the complainant nor he has stated that accused persons were armed with hunter and Dandas. According to him it was 3-00 or 3-30 O'clock he saw Baig Muhammad and Amanullah, standing near a vehicle where 2/3 persons of the village were also present. According to him when Baig Muhammad was asked to go they responded and according: went in a vehicle.
He has further stated the Baig Muhammad made to sit his wife in the vehicle which was being driven on Amanullah. The eye account of the occurrence given by P.W.5 Abdul Baqi and the Medical Certificate Exh.P/6-A issue after about one year and all surrounding circumstances make the prosecution case very doubtful. There is also delay of about five days in lodging of the F.I.R.
Without any plausible explanation. The complainant duty appear before the trial Court as P.W.1 but s has not stated a word about motive. In cross examination she has admitted that the house where she is residing is owned by Baig Muhammad. In the Medical Certificate she has been indicated as wife of Ba Muhammad who has also denied a suggestion to had pronounced Talaq to her prior occurrence. Mst. Abida who is stated to had been beaten by the accused/respondents her neither been produced by the prosecution in her name is indicated in the list of witness There is also non- compliance of to mandatory provisions of the section 103, Cr.P.c regarding alleged recovery of Dandas. The reasons given by the learned Trial Judge for disbelieving the witnesses are artificial.
8. After considering the submission made by the learned counsel and having gone through the evidence and keeping in view the law as laid down while appraising evidence appeal against acquittal we decline to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court as no legal infirmity, perversity unreasonableness was pointed out Consequently this appeal is dismissed.