SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The appellant, Pathana (aged, 23 years), was con--victed by an Additional Sessions Judge at Mianwali of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Mst. Mubarak deceased. For this offence be was sentenced to death and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,C00. He has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also made a reference to this Court under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the confirmation of the sentence of death imposed upon him. This judgment will dispose of both these matters.
2. The appellant resided in village Ghup-Ghalwal within the limits of Rakh Haiderabad in Tehsil Bhakhar. He was married to the deceased who belonged to Basti Shergarh of Mauza Bhidwal which was about 25 miles away from the village of the appellant. In exchange for this marriage a sister of the appellant was married to Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6), a brother of the deceased. Phulla (P. W.
5) was a common relative of the parties. He resided in Basti Shergarh. He got his son engaged to the daughter of one Lai who resided in the village of the appellant. On the day immediately preceding the occurrence, that is, on 25-7-1976 he brought the barat of his son to Ghup-Ghalwal in a bus. Amongst other, the barat included Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) and Madara (P. W. 7).
3. It was alleged by the prosecution that the appellant refused to join the marriage ceremonies of Phulla's son and also forbade the deceased from participating therein In order to pursuade the appellant to attend the ceremonies Phulla (P. W. 5), Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) and Madara (P. W.
7) went to his house. The appellant, however, remained adamant. This led to an exchange of hot words between the deceased who wanted to join the celebrations and the appellant. Nevertheless, the decision of the appellant prevailed. Later, in the evening when the barat was about to return to Basti Shergarh the deceased salt down in the bus. When the appellant came to know of this he forced her to get down. This led to another exchange of strong language between the two spouses.
In order to pacify them Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) and Madara (P. W. 7) stayed back in Ghup- Ghalwal. The appellant, however, disappeared from his house.
4. It was further alleged by the prosecution that on the same night at about 1 or 2 a.m. The appellant returned to his house and went to the place where the deceased was sleeping on a cot.
He was armed with a hatchet. He started hitting the deceased with the hatchet. The deceased raised an alarm which woke up Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) and Madara (P. W. 7) who were sleeping at short distances from the cot of the deceased. As they tried to rescue the deceased the appellant threatened to deal with them also in a similar fashion. He then gave another hatchet blow to the deceased and ran away. The deceased who was bleeding profusely died shortly thereafter.
5. On the following morning, at 8 a.m., Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) went to Police Post Haiderabad and made a statement before A. S. I. Nazir Ahmad (P. W. 10). On the basis of this statement a case was subsequently registered at Police Station Mankera on the same day at 9-30 a.m. The appellant was arrested by the A. S. I. Nazir Ahmad (P. W. 10) on 27-7-1976. At that time he was wearing a blood-stained shirt (Exh. P. 7). This was taken into possession by A. S. I. Nazir Ahmad (P. W. 10). Later, on the same day, he led a police party headed by, A. S. I. Nazir Ahmad (P. W. 10) to a place 20 to 25 karams away from the 'scene of occurrence and after removing some bricks he dug out a blood- stained hatchet (Exh. P. 8). The memoranda prepared for the two recoveries were attested by Madara (P. W. 7) and one Lal who was not produced at the trial. Subsequently, the shirt (Eah. P./7) and the hatchet (Exh. P./8) were sent to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. According to their reports the blood on these two articles was of human origin.
6. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was performed by Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan (P. W. 9). She had four incised wounds on the left side of the neck and head and on the left wrist. As a result there were fractures on the head and the blood vessels of the neck had been cut. In the opinion of the doctor two of the incised wounds were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
7. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge against him He denied that he was in any way responsible for causing the death of the deceased. He alleged that at the relevant time he was not even present in the village and that the deceased was killed while she was sleeping in his house by some unknown person who had covered up his face. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
8. The case of the prosecution against the appellant rests mainly on the evidence of the two eye- witnesses, namely, Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) and Madara (P. W. 7). It is true that they belonged to a different village but there is no reason why their claim that they had come to Ghup Ghalwal on the day immediately preceding the occurrence in connection with the wedding of Phulla's son should be disbelieved. It is to be noticed that in his statement at the trial the appellant admitted that on the day immediately preceding the occurrence the barat of Phulla's son had come to his village and that his brother-in-law, Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) was among the members of the barat. We also can find no ground for disbelieving the assertion of Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) and Madara (P. W. 7) that they had stayed back in the village to pacify the two spouses. Both have stated that they had seen the appellant giving hatchet blows to the deceased. Considering the close rela--tionship between the parties and the absence of any enmity we see no justifica--tion in rejecting their testimony.
9. An application on behalf of the appellant has been moved before us that his parents who resided with him and were as such natural witnesses should also be examined. There is no explanation why he did not care to produce them at the trial. Considering their likely interest in the case we do not think that their evidence will have any probation value.
10. On the evidence of Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) and Madara (P. W. 7) we are satisfied that it was the appellant who killed the deceased. The weapon used by the appellant as well as the sites of the injuries leave no room for doubt that he had the intention to kill when he attacked the deceased. He was thus rightly convicted by the learned Additional Session Judge of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The question of sentence, however, requires serious consideration Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) has appeared before us and submitted an affidavit in which he Inter alia states that he and the family members of the appellant have entered into a compromise whereby be has pardoned the appellant He also states that in order to remove family grievances and to promote harmonious relations within the family the sentence of death should be reduced o remitted. It is to be noticed that the offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code is not a compoundable one. However, we can take the circumstances mentioned by Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6) into account while considering the question of sentence. Admittedly, the sister of the appellant is married to Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 6). They are related inter se other wise also. The family has already suffered a bereavement. It may perhaps not be in the interest of justice that they should suffer another bereavement also. We, therefore, do cot confirm the sentence of death and instead reduce the sentence of the appellant to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine is however maintained. The appeal and the reference are disposed of accordingly.