ISLAMABAD: The Punjab government has supported the imposition of consecutive sentences in grave and heinous crimes, particularly multiple-murder cases, arguing that the practice would help restore public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The provincial government submitted its written response to the Supreme Court in a case concerning whether sentences awarded to convicts involved in multiple murders should run consecutively or concurrently.
Additional Prosecutor General Punjab Tariq Siddique submitted the response, addressing two key questions: whether a sessions court, while convicting and sentencing an accused on multiple counts, is required to direct that the sentences run consecutively or concurrently, and whether the gravity of the offences should also be considered in making that determination.
In its written submissions, the Punjab prosecution argued that courts should not routinely order sentences to run consecutively in every case. Instead, such orders should be passed through reasoned and explicit judicial decisions in exceptional cases involving particularly brutal, inhuman and heinous crimes.
The government maintained that reducing a life sentence to a substantive term of 15 years made it even more important for courts to avoid a mechanical or casual approach when ordering sentences to run concurrently, warning that such a practice could erode public confidence in the criminal justice system.
A convict involved in multiple murders should not be given the benefit of release after serving only 15 years, the response argued.
It further stated that routinely ordering concurrent sentences could send a message that the justice system made little distinction between the killing of one person and multiple victims.
Citing the principle of proportionality, the Punjab government argued that when multiple lives were unlawfully taken, each offence should carry an independent and distinct penal consequence.
Merging all sentences into a single concurrent term in multiple-murder cases would dilute the gravity of additional offences and create an artificial equivalence between taking one life and taking several, the response stated.
The government further argued that allowing all sentences to run concurrently could effectively convey the message that a person convicted of one murder or several murders could be released after the same period in prison.
Referring to the legislative treatment of heinous crimes, the response said lawmakers had recognised that such offences required special measures. It cited restrictions on the grant of remissions to certain convicts under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as examples of this approach.
The Punjab government maintained that consecutive sentences in grave and heinous offences would not only strengthen public confidence in the administration of criminal justice but also serve the deterrent and retributive objectives of punishment.
Citing Section 4 of the Punjab Sentencing Act, 2019, the response noted that sentencing aims to punish offenders, reduce crime through deterrence, reform and rehabilitate offenders, and protect the public.
Pakistan offers Bangladesh cooperation on legal reforms and digital justice
It emphasised that consecutive sentences should not be imposed in every routine case but should be ordered through reasoned judicial decisions in exceptional circumstances, particularly where offences have been committed in a brutal, morbid or inhuman manner that shocks the public conscience.
Such cases may include homicide, kidnapping and abduction, sexual abuse and terrorism, the response stated.
The Punjab prosecution added that ordering consecutive sentences in grave, sensational and inhuman crimes, particularly offences against the human body, would help strengthen public faith in the justice system, maintain social equilibrium and fulfil the retributive and deterrent purposes of punishment.