' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---Sultan Mahmood appellant, aged 18, alongwith co-accused Mumtaz Hussain, who is the brother of his wife, namely, Mst. Ghulam Begum, was tried under section 302/307/34, P.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock on the charges of committing murder of Muhammad Noor, his son Muhammad Razzak and launching a murderous assault on Muhammad Nawaz, the complainant, another son of Muhammad Noor deceased, in furtherance of common intention in the area of village Thoha Mahram Khan, within the limits of Police Station Attock, on 18- 8-1980 at Rotiwela. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 5-5-1982, acquitted Mumtaz Hussain on all the counts, but convicted the appellant under section 302 on two counts and sentenced him to death and fine of Rs,2,000 on each count or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C., and sentenced to three years ' R.I., and a fine of Rs,2,000 was also imposed on him. On appeal and reference, so far as murder of Muhammad Noor is concerned, the High Court under its judgment dated 6-2-1985 maintained the appellant's conviction under section 302 and sentence of death, but acquitted him of the charge of murder of Muhammad Razzak and attempting at the life of Muhammad Nawaz by giving him benefit of doubt.
2. The motive alleged by the prosecution, as given in the F.I.R. And quoted in the ing order is: "Three years before the occurrence, Muhammad Nawaz complainant was suspected of having illicit relations with Mst. Ghulam Begum daughter of Fateh Khan. Due to the illicit relations complainant was also sufficiently defamed. Two years prior to the present occurrence Mst. Ghulam Begum was married to Sultan Mahmood petitioner. But the suspicion of illicit relations could not be removed from the mind of the petitioner and about 20 days before the occurrence the petitioner has also quarrelled with Muhammad Razzaq deceased but due to the intervention of Manzoor Hussain the dispute was settled, but Sultan Mahmood petitioner was nursing grudge on account of illicit relations."
' The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. In reply to question No,5 submitted: "However, it is correct that about 15 days prior to the occurrence when I was present in my own land and Razzaq deceased was in his own land nearby I had asked him to admonish his brother Muhammad Nawaz P.W. For having illicit relations with my wife and when he asked me that better I should restrain my wife from doing so and he was helpless so far as his brother was concerned there took place an argument between us and we exchanged hot words."
3. Leave to appeal was granted to examine that in view of the motive set up by the prosecution and the appellant's statement, whether he was entitled to lesser sentence.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is obvious that vindication of the family honour was the cause of the commission of the murder. It appears that news of illicit relation between Muhammad Nawaz complainant and the appellant's wife had widely travelled in the village. According to the complainant himself, as disclosed by him in the F.I.R. Because of this imputation he was also sufficiently defamed. It is borne out from the appellant's statement that he made an attempt to avert the ugly situation and approached Muhammad Razzak deceased to admonish Muhammad Nawaz for having liaison with his wife, but instead of assuring the appellant that he would reapproach his brother he sarcastically conveyed to him that he should exercise control over his wife. This taunt must have further offended the appellant whose equanimity was already disturbed. The reason given by the High Court in awarding capital sentence to the appellant is that he committed murder of Muhammad Noor without any justification and there was no mitigating circumstance to impose lesser punishment. We are, however, unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judges of the High Court. It is in the judgment of the learned trial Judge that the appellant's complained to Muhammad Noor as well about the immoral conduct of his son Muhammad Nawaz. Seemingly, this complaint went unheeded. It seems that the remarks of Muhammad Razzak and apathy of Muhammad Noor in declining to intervene, would have aggravated the appellant's traditional urge to avenge his family honour. We are satisfied that the circumstances surrounding his guilt call for leniency in sentence. The sentence of death is, therefore, converted into one of life imprisonment. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall also be given to the appellant.
' This appeal, therefore, succeeds partly as indicated above.
Sentence reduced.