ISLAMABAD: The Punjab government has told the Supreme Court that ordering consecutive sentences in cases involving heinous, brutal and inhuman crimes would strengthen public confidence in the criminal justice system and serve the objectives of retribution and deterrence.
“The purpose of sentencing is the punishment of offenders, reduction of crime, including through deterrence, reform and rehabilitation of offenders, and protection of the public,” says an opinion submitted to the SC through Punjab’s Additional Prosecutor General Tariq Siddiqui, citing Section 4 of the Punjab Sentencing Act, 2019.
A seven-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, is considering whether trial courts must direct sentences imposed on an accused for multiple offences to run consecutively or concurrently, and whether the gravity of an offence should be considered when determining sentences.
The court will resume hearing the matter, which concerns multiple murders and the duration of life imprisonment, on Nov 10.
Urges SC to reserve consecutive terms in exceptional cases that outrage public conscience; argues that merging sentences places one killing at a par with multiple murders
In its opinion, the Punjab government argued that consecutive sentences should not be imposed in every routine case but reserved for exceptional circumstances, through a reasoned order, where an offence was committed in a morbid, brutal and inhuman manner that outraged public conscience. Such cases could include homicide, kidnapping and abduction, sexual abuse and terrorism.
According to the Punjab government’s opinion, Article 10-A of the Constitution, Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, required courts to issue reasoned orders when deciding whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. This would enable appellate courts to assess whether the discretion exercised by subordinate courts was legally justified.
The Punjab government also referred to the SC’s judgement in the Qaisar Mehmood case, which resolved the inconsistency between its 1991 Bashir and 2009 Shah Hussain judgements by holding that the latter had been delivered in ignorance of the ratio laid down in the former.
The Qaisar Mehmood judgement held that punishment must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
Where multiple lives were unlawfully taken, each offence required independent penal recognition, it said, adding that merging all sentences into a single concurrent term would dilute the gravity of additional offences and equate the taking of one life with that of several.
It also held that the criminal justice system could not adopt a sentencing approach that diminished the distinct value of each human life or undermined public confidence in the administration of justice.
Under Section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code, life imprisonment is calculated as 25 years. However, the opinion said, executive remissions could reduce the actual period served to around 15 years.
The legislature had acknowledged this limitation and, through the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, introduced imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life as a punishment under Sections 375-A (gang rape) and 376 (punishment for rape) of PPC, the opinion noted.
It argued that the substantial reduction in the period actually served made it particularly important for courts to avoid a mechanical or casual approach when ordering sentences to run concurrently.
A person convicted of multiple murders should not be released after serving only around 15 years, the Punjab prosecution argued, warning that routinely merging sentences would convey the impression that the justice system made no distinction between killing one person and killing several.
The opinion maintained that deterrence and retribution could not be sacrificed in the name of mercy or expediency. It further argued that sparing an accused the death penalty in a case where the charge had been proved could result in a grave miscarriage of justice, and that capital punishment should be imposed to restore the supremacy of the law.
Published in Dawn, October 20th, 2026
