mental health condition of convict Imdad Ali, his sentence of death may be converted into imprisonment for life. Without touching the mental health condition of convict Imdad Ali, we have observed that there are sufficient reasons/circumstances available on record, which warrant conversion of his death sentence to imprisonment for life. Firstly, the motive set up by the prosecution was disbelieved by the trial Court in Para 25 of its judgment after assigning valid and convincing reasons. This fact was not considered by this Court while dismissing the appeal of Imdad Ali perhaps due to lack of proper assistance. This oversight qualifies as a ground for review and consequently converting the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. Secondly, as earlier pointed out, convict Imdad Ali has already served out about 20 years of his substantive sentence. Therefore, on the principle of legitimate expectancy of life recently considered by this Court in the case of Sikandar Hayat and another v. The State and others22, he is entitled to conversion of death sentence to that of imprisonment for life. Resultantly, Criminal Review Petition No. 170 of 2016 is allowed. The judgment passed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 619 of 2009 is reviewed and recalled. Consequently, Crl. Appeal No. 619 of 2009 is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Imdad Ali under section 302(b), P.P.C. is maintained, however, his sentence of death is converted into imprisonment for life, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The amount of compensation and sentence in its default shall remain intact. (C.R.Ps. Nos. 420 and 424 of 2016) 75. As already mentioned in Para 8 above, Mst. Safia Bano (wife of convict Imdad Ali) has filed C.R.P. No. 420 of 2016, whereas C.R.P. No. 424 of 2016 has been filed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab seeking review of this Court's judgment in C.P. No. 2990 of 2016 dated 27.09.2016, which is reported as PLD 2017 SC 18, passed while placing reliance upon the view of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India and others23 and Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta24. It appears that this Court was not properly assisted in the matter which led to a misplaced reliance upon the case of Ram Narain supra which in fact dealt with the question of mental illness with regard to the dissolution of marriage considering the provisions laid down in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case was not relevant to the distinguishable circumstances of the case of Imdad Ali. In this backdrop, Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Narain are being reproduced for ease of reference:"9. The point, however, to note is that S. 13(1)(iii) does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of a marriage. Section 13 (1)(iii) provides: "S.13. Divorce: (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either husband