ISLAMABAD: The Punjab government has backed the use of consecutive sentences in grave and heinous crimes, especially multiple-murder cases. It argues that the approach would help rebuild public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The provincial government set out its position in a written response submitted to the Supreme Court. The case asks whether sentences for convicts in multiple murders should run consecutively or concurrently. Additional Prosecutor General Punjab Tariq Siddique filed the response, which addresses two questions: whether a sessions court convicting an accused on several counts must direct consecutive or concurrent terms, and whether the seriousness of the offences should shape that decision.
Prosecution opposes routine concurrent sentencing
The Punjab prosecution told the court that sentences should not be ordered to run consecutively as a matter of routine. Such orders, it said, should be made through reasoned and explicit judicial rulings in exceptional cases involving particularly brutal, inhuman and heinous crimes.
The government said that reducing a life sentence to a substantive term of 15 years made it even more important for courts to avoid a mechanical approach when imposing concurrent terms. It warned that such an approach could erode public trust. A convict involved in multiple murders, the response argued, should not be able to walk free after serving only 15 years.
Routinely ordering concurrent terms, the response further stated, could suggest that the justice system made little distinction between killing one person and killing several. Citing the principle of proportionality, the government argued that each offence in a multiple-killing case should carry its own separate penal consequence. Merging everything into one term, it said, would dilute the gravity of additional offences and treat taking one life and taking several as equivalent.
Legal framework and sentencing objectives cited
The response said lawmakers had already recognised that heinous crimes require special measures. It pointed to 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 that approach.
The Punjab government maintained that consecutive sentences in grave offences would strengthen public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. It also said such sentences would serve the deterrent and retributive aims of punishment. Referring to Section 4 of the Punjab Sentencing Act, 2019, the response noted that sentencing is meant to punish offenders, reduce crime through deterrence, reform and rehabilitate offenders, and protect the public.
Offences that could warrant consecutive terms
The response stressed that consecutive terms should not be imposed in every ordinary case. Instead, they should be ordered through reasoned judicial decisions where an offence was committed in a brutal, morbid or inhuman manner that shocks the public conscience. According to the response, such cases may include:
- Homicide
- Kidnapping and abduction
- Sexual abuse
- Terrorism
The prosecution added that consecutive sentences for grave, sensational and inhuman crimes, particularly offences against the human body, would help strengthen public faith in the justice system. It said such sentences would also maintain social equilibrium and fulfil the retributive and deterrent purposes of punishment.
