ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This appeal by Muhammad Yunus is directed against the judgment of High Court dated 2-5-1974 reducing the death sentence of Karam Khan, respondent to that of imprisonment for life.
2. Karam Khan, respondent, was tried along with his father Karim Dad and his two brothers Lal Khan and Liaqat for the murder of Abdul Rahman.
3. According to the prosecution version at evening time on 13-7-1971 Yunus (appellant herein) and his uncle Abdul Rahman (deceased) were going from their village Qaziabad to visit a relative in Lawrencepur. On the way they were attached by the four accused out of whom Karam Khan and Lai were armed with guns while Liaqat and Karim Dad were armed with hatchets. They gave a Lalkara, on which Muhammad Yunus took to his heels. Karam Khan fired a gunshot on Abdul Rahman and thereafter all the accused encircled the deceased and he was given a merciless beating where after his body was thrown into deserted and dry well at a short distance from the spot. The occurrence was also seen by Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Sarwar, P. Ws. Muhammad Yunus informed his maternal uncle Abdul Wahid about the incident. Both of them went to the spot and searched for the deceased but in vain. Muhammad Yunus then reported the matter to the police at the Police Post Lawrencepur where statement Exh. P. G. I was recorded on the basis of which formal case was registered.
4. In the formal F. I. R. The motive for the offence was stated to be that Karam Khan, accused, suspected Abdul Rahman (deceased) of having illicit relations with his wife Mst. Hakam Jan.
5. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ashraf, p. W.
9, Ghulam Sarwar, P. W. 10 and Muhammad Yunus, P. W.
15. Their testimony was supported by the evidence of recovery, medical evidence and the motive.
5-A. The trial Court acquitted Karim Dad but convicted the remaining three accused under section 402/34, P. P. C. It sentenced Karam Khan to death but awarded Lal Khan and Liaqat to the lesser sentence of imprison--ment for life. All of them appealed to the High Court which placed implicit reliance on the testimony of Ghulam Sarwar, Pointman, Railway Station, Lawrencepur who worked near the place of occurrence and was therefore, a natural witness. He is also an independent witness. The Court also relied on the corroboratory evidence of recovery of weapons, the medical evidence and the evidence of motive. It, however, reduced the sentence awarded to Karam Khan from death to imprisonment for life.
6. Yunus filed a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of Karim Dad. Leave was, however, granted by order dated 16-10-1974 to him to consider the question of enhancement of sentence of Karam Khan.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the justifica--tion spelt out by the learned High Court Judges for reducing the sentence of Karam Khan had no legal basis and is not based on correct reasons. He pointed out that reason given by the High Court was that the gunshot injuries on the person of Abdul Rehman (deceased) were not found on any vital part of his body and were not responsible for his death which in the opinion of the doctor had occurred due to haemorrhage in chest cavity on account of fracture of ribs. This injury according to the learned Judges had been caused when the deceased was thrown in the well. They, therefore, came to the conclusion that the sentence of death was not proper in the case of Karam Khan.
8. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, pointed out that motive for the murder in this case, as put forward by the prosecu--tion itself, was that Karaw Khan suspected the deceased of having illicit relationswith his wife. The assertion with regard to the motive was reiterated by Muhammad Yunus, appellant, in his statement when he appeared at the trial as P. W. 15 and has been believed by the High Court. The State counsel submitted that in such a case the Court is justified in holding that the accused is entitled to lesser penalty.
9. Although we are not inclined to agree with the reasons advanced by the learned Judges of the High Court for reduction of the sentence of Karam Khan, respondent, but we feel that he was entitled to the lesser penalty in view of the motive for the murder as alleged by the prosecution itself, as it involved the question of honour of his wife. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that death sentence is riot called for in cases involving family honour touching females. See Fagira v.
State (1973SCMR532), Muhammad Din v. State (1976 SCM R 185) and Ajun Shah v. State (PLD1967SC185).
10. Before parting with this case we would like to mention that the occurrence in this case took place on 13-7-1971 when the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, had not yet been enforced. As such at the relevant time i.e .When his sentence was reduced) he could be awarded only Transportation for life and not imprisonment for life.
According to section 57 of the Penal Code, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the sentence of Transporta--tion for life was to be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. By the said amendment in section 57, P. P. C. Sentence of imprisonment for life was substituted for transportation for life and is to be reckoned as equivalent to 25 years imprisonment. Law Reforms Ordinance came into a force on 14-4-1972 and it does not contain any provision for its application retrospectively, Moreover, Article 12 of the 1973 Constitution protects person against netrospective punishment as it provides that no law shall authorize the punishment of a person for an offence by a penalty greater than the penalty prescribed by law for that offence at the time when the offence was committed.
11. Consequently, we alter his sentence to transportation for life with the direction that he may be given the benefit to which he would have been entitled if he had been awarded this sentence by