' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The respondent was tried for murder of Muhammad Riaz by the learned Additional District Judge, Shorkot who through judgment, dated 15-10-1996, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And awarded him death sentence. He was also further directed to pay Rs,25,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default to undergo four months' S.I. In appeal filed by the respondent-convict and murder reference, the learned Judges of the High Court through the impugned judgment set aside the said conviction and acquitted him by holding that there was no evidence available against the respondent on the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition maintained that evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that he had seen the respondent carrying hatchet on the fateful day which was allegedly used in the offence coupled with the recovery of the said hatchet and evidence of extra-judicial confession was sufficient to prove the case against the respondent, therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court and award of sentence Of death was legally justified.
3. We have examined the impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case to ascertain whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable shadow of doubt the guilt of the respondent. It may he mentioned here that recovery of weapon of offence by itself without any other corroborative evidence was not a substantial piece of evidence. The evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that he had seen the respondent on the fateful day carrying hatchet was also of not evidence of the nature to hold that the case against the respondent had been proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the respondent was rightly not given any credence having been made before two persons at the same time. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted when questioned that the P.W.5 did not state in the Court that the hatchet present in the Court was the same about which he alleged to have carried by the respondent.
4. After undertaking scrutiny of the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are fully satisfied that the findings of the High Court that it was a case of no evidence does not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is found to be meritless which is hereby dismissed and .