' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.-- This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment, dated 9-7-1986, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara had acquitted the respondent.
2. The occurrence in this case had taken place during the night of 6th/7th January, 1984. The F.I.R.
Was lodged at 6 a.m. On 7-1-1984. Two persons, i,e, Yaqub and Maqsood were named as suspects.
The motive mentioned in the F.I.R. Was that one Akhtar, a cousin of the deceased, had abducted a sister of Maqsood and the deceased had helped him in that, two years prior to the occurrence.
3. The police during investigation did not arrest the persons named in the F.I.R. The respondent was arrested and challaned for having murdered the deceased.
4. At the trial apart from the recovery evdience the prosecution produced P.W.6 in support of the fact that the respondent had made confession before him and one Haji Muhammad Iqbal, 3/4 days after the murder.
' Malik Muhammad Yar Khokhar, M.I.C. (P.W.7) was produced in support of the prosecution case that the respondent had made a judicial confession before him by making statement on 11-1-1984.
5. The respondent during trial denied the prosecution case as a whole and took up the plea of innocence. His stance was that he had been taken into custody by the police on the very first day and the evidence of extra-judicial confession as well as judicial confession was concocted and obtained by using pressure and torture.
6. At the trial P.W.4 Asghar Ali, who had escorted the dead body to the mortuary from the spot during cross-examination admitted that Munir (respondent) had been arrested and taken to the police station on the same day as an accused. The fact of the respondent being with the police on the first day was also admitted by P.W.6, Ch. Muhammad Aslam, during cross-examination, who stated that when he had visited the spot, Munir was sitting there alongwith other persons.
The learned trial Judge on the basis of this evidence came to the conclusion that the statement made by Ch. Muhammad Aslam (P.W.6) of the respondent having appeared before him 3/4 days after the occurrence and of having made confession appeared incorrect. It was again on this basis that the learned trial Judge did not believe the evidence of judicial confession, because the stance of the prosecution that the respondent had been arrested on 10-1-1984, stood disproved.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show us as to how the opinion formed by the learned trial Judge can be taken to have been formed on any extraneous matters of facts, nor he has been able to point out as to how the appreciation of evidence done by the trial Judge can be assessed to be wrong appreciation of evidence.
8. The evidence of the alleged recovery at the instance of the respondent was also disbelieved for sufficient reasons. But even if that be disregarded, no conviction could have been based on the basis of extra-judicial confession and the judicial confession, as held by the learned trial Judge.
9. For all the reasons mentioned above, no case for interference in the judgment of acquittal is made out. The appeal is dismissed in limine.