RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.-For the murder of Mst. Mehmood Khatun deceased, Fateh Khan, accused, was convicted under section 302, P. P .C. And sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, subject to confir--mation of the sentence by this Court. The appeal (Cr. A. 190/80) preferred by Fateh Khan, convict, against his conviction and sentence, the reference (M. R. 48/80) sent up by the trial Judge for the confirmation of the convict's sentence and the private revision (Cr. R. 509/80) filed by Sher Muhammad, complainant for the grant of compensation to the heirs of the deceased, are all now before us for consideration and will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. Dost Muhammad Awan, learned counsel for the appellant, has not challenged the conviction of Fateh Khan, accused, under section 302, P. P. C. But has only pleaded for the lesser penalty to be imposed upon the appellant. In these circumstances, our labour has been cut short and we will, therefore, only deal with the case in this limited context.
3. The prosecution story, as proved, is that a day before the occurrence. Fateh Khan, appellant, came to the house of Sher Muhammad P. W. 8, the father-in-law of his real brother Ahmad Khan, in order to take back Mst. Sahib Khatun, his sister-in-law and the daughter of the said Sher Muhammad P.W. Sher Muhammad P.W. 8, Mst. Mehmood Khatun, deceased, and his children were present in their house. They told Fateh Khan, appellant, that they would not send back their daughter Mst. Sahib Khatun to his house, but if her husband Ahmad Khan came, they would send her with him. The appellant did not agree to this and entered into altercation and started quarrelling with Mehmood Khatun, deceased, who abused him. The appellant angrily left their house, holding out a threat that he would see to it. Next day, i.e. On 24-I1-1978 at 10 a. m. Mst.
Mehmood Khatun, deceased, and her daughter Asmat Khatun were sitting in their house, while Sher Muhammad P. W. 8 and Shah Nawaz (given up P. W.) were sitting in the adjoining dera of their house, when the latter heard an alarm from the house: Sher Muhammad P. W. 8 and Shah Nawaz (given up P. W.) ran from the Ira to the house. Muhammad Khan (given up P. W.) also reached there. In the presence of these witnesses, Fateh Khan, appellant, was found giving 3/4 blows with his `ghotna' on the head of Mst. Mehmood Khatun, deceased, as a result of which she fell down. The appellant was overpowered at the spot along with his ghotna P. 7.
4. In support of the plea for the - imposition of the lesser penalty, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that actually the occurrence relating to the altercation and quarrel between Fateh Khan, appellant, and Mst. Mehmood Khatun, deceased, which led to the latter hurling abuses at the former, which was alleged to have taken place on 23-11-1978, actually did not take place that day, but on the very day of occurrence itself. In this connection he referred to the statement in cross- examination of Fateh Khan Lambardar P. W. 5 who stated that the appellant bad gone to, bring back his sister-in-law on the very day of the occurrence itself. In these circumstances, learned counsel submitted that as the appellant has been provoked by the abuses hurled by the deceased at him, he got infuriated and lost self-control and committed .The crime in question. Learned counsel further submits that prior to the occurrence the appellant had been admitted in the Government Mental Hospital, Lahore, thrice for mental ailment, that the third time he was admitted in the said hospital, it was for schizophrenia, which was so declared by the Board of the said hospital, and that his behaviour at the time of occurrence disclosed abnormality, and, therefore, this was a fit case where the appellant should be granted the lesser penalty. In this connection the learned counsel referred to the statement of Khuda Bakhsh D. W. 1, the Headmaster of Government Primary School, Village Ochhali, who stated that the appellant was a teacher in the Primary School Ochhali and that he had taken medical leave from 7-9-1976 to 2-2-1977, 10-12-1977 to 12-1-1978, and 21-5-1978 to 24-6-1978 and that of Ghulam Qadir D. W. 2, the Patient Clerk of the Government Mental Hospital, Lahore, who produced the record of the hospital pertaining to the appellant and stated that he had been confined in the Mental Hospital for the first time from 14-12-1976 to 14-1- 1977, when no abnormality was detected, that with regard to his second confinement in the hospital, the said Register was with the Rahimyar Khan Police in connection with another murder case and, therefore, he could not give the period of the appellant's confinement in the hospital, and that he was confined for the third time from 21-5-1978 to 26-6-1978 for Schizophrenia and ultimately declared fit by the Medical Board on Z1-6-1978, vide Certificate Exh. D, I, Learned counsel further refers to the statement in cross-examination of Fateh Khan Lambardar P. W. 5 who affirmed that prior to the occurrence the appellant had been in the Mental Asylum, though he did not know if the appellant had suffered any mental ailment. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though Sher Muhammad P. W. 8 and Mst. Asmat Khatun P. W. 9 have deposed that some incident took place one day earlier on 23-11- 1978, on which day the deceased abused the appellant, but the statement of Fateh Khan Lambardar P. W. 5 indicates that the altercation, quarrel and abuses by the deceased all took place on the very same day that the incident occurred. The statements of Sher Muhammad P. W. 8 and Mst. Asmat Khatun P. W. 9 appear to be biased, but that of Fateh Khan P. W.:.5, who is an independent person, appears to have a ring of truth. We feel that the altercation and quarrel between the deceased, and the appellant and the use of abusive language by the deceased, all took place on the date of occurrence. Since the deceased initiated the abuse, very likely the appellant was infuriated and lost self-control and violently attacked the deceased. The evidence of Khuda Bakhsh D. W. 1, Ghulam Qadir D. W. 2 and Fateh Khan P. W. 5 clearly show, that the appellant had been admitted in the Mental Hospital, Lahore, thrice and, that in any case, on the third occasion from 21-5-1978 to 26-6-1978 he was definitely suffering from Schizophrenia, which disease was indicated in the fitness certificate Exh. D. 1 granted to him on 21-6-1978. The appellant bore no ill-will against the deceased and the fact that on receipt of abuses from the deceased, he ruthlessly used his `Ghotna' on her head and face, which not only fractured her skull and nosal bone and almost nearly destroyed her right eye, show that he was not mentally normal at the time of the commission of the offence. In a similar situation, where an accused previous to the murder had suffered from schizophrenia and it was held that at the time of murder his actions betrayed that he was not mentally normal, the Supreme Court (in Ijaz Ahmad's. Case, 1980 SCMR 892) reduced his sentence from death to life imprisonment. Taking all circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that at the time of the occurrence the normal and that the abuses hurled by the deceased appellant was not mentally herself also in some measure provoked him beyond control, if not further excited his imbalance, to commit the crime. We, therefore, feel that the ends of justice would be severed if the sentence of death is reduced to life imprisonment.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appellant's appeal against his conviction, but reduce his sentence from death to life imprisonment. In view of section 382-B, Cr. P. C., we consider it reasonable and proper that the period of detention undergone by the appellant as an under trial prisoner shall be treated as that undergone by him as a convict. We notice that the learned trial Judge neither imposed any fine on the appellant nor awarded any compensation to the heirs of the deceased, as required under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. We consider that in the interest of justice a fine of Rupees Five Thousand (Rs. 5,000) should be imposed on the appellant, which we, hereby do, which, if recovered, shall be paid to the legal heirs of Mehmood Khatoon, deceased, as compensation. In case the said fine is not paid by the appellant, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Subject to the modification of the sentence, as stated above, the appeal of Fath Khan, appellant, is dismissed. Since we have awarded com--pensation to the heirs of the deceased, the private revision (Cr. R. 509 of 1980) filed by the complainant for the grant of compensation to them has become infructuous. We, therefore, dismiss this revision petition in limine.