Supreme Court of Pakistan Rejects Concurrent Sentencing for Multiple Murders
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued a definitive ruling against the practice of imposing concurrent, or overlapping, sentences in cases involving multiple homicides. The bench, led by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and including Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, held that merging sentences for multiple murders artificially diminishes the gravity of taking more than one life.
A Question of Proportionality
The ruling stems from a jail petition filed by Qaiser Abbas, who challenged a May 11, 2018, judgment by the Lahore High Court. Abbas had been convicted of the 2011 murders of Faiza Bibi and Abiha. While the trial court had originally ordered two life sentences to run consecutively, the petitioner sought to have them run concurrently, citing the 2009 Shah Hussain case as a precedent for limiting total sentencing.
In his seven-page judgment, Justice Kakar argued that the judicial system must ensure punishment reflects the actual scale of a crime. He noted, “To direct all sentences to merge into one concurrent term in cases of multiple murders would substantially dilute the gravity of the additional offences and create an artificial equivalence between the taking of one life and the taking of several.”
Clarifying Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court addressed the conflict between past rulings, specifically the 2009 Shah Hussain decision and the 1991 Bashir versus state case. The Court determined that the Shah Hussain case was decided without proper consideration of the earlier five-member bench ruling in Bashir, which had already established the interpretation of Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The bench clarified that the Bashir case remains the governing authority, confirming that restrictions on sentencing under Section 35(2) of the CrPC apply only to courts of limited jurisdiction—such as magistrates and assistant sessions judges—and do not extend to sessions courts. The Court ruled that the Shah Hussain case does not serve as a valid precedent, and it ultimately upheld the consecutive sentencing in the case of Qaiser Abbas.
Significance and Future Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that each victim’s life carries independent legal value. By rejecting the “kill two or three, pay for one” approach, the Supreme Court has set a clear standard for proportionality in the Pakistani criminal justice system.
Looking ahead, this decision is likely to result in more consistent sentencing patterns in lower courts. By clarifying that sessions courts are not bound by the sentencing limitations previously cited by defense counsel, the judgment may lead to more frequent applications of consecutive terms in cases involving multiple counts of homicide. Courts across the country will now be expected to adhere to this interpretation, ensuring that those convicted of multiple murders face penalties that reflect the full extent of their criminal actions.
