Punjab government supports consecutive sentences to rebuild public trust in justice system
The Punjab administration has voiced its backing for consecutive prison terms in the most serious crimes, especially cases involving multiple murders, saying the approach could restore faith in the criminal justice system. The province submitted a written response to the Supreme Court on a petition that asks whether sentences handed down to convicts in multiple‑murder cases should run one after another or at the same time.
Prosecutor General of Punjab Tariq Siddique presented the response, which tackled two principal questions: whether a sessions court, when convicting and sentencing a defendant on several counts, must specify that the punishments be consecutive or concurrent, and whether the seriousness of the offences should influence that decision.
In its filing, the Punjab prosecution argued that courts should not automatically impose consecutive sentences in every case. Such orders, it said, ought to arise from careful, reasoned judgments in exceptional situations involving especially brutal, inhuman or heinous acts. The government warned that reducing a life term to a fixed period of fifteen years makes it even more crucial for judges to avoid a mechanical or casual approach to concurrent sentencing, lest public confidence in the system erode. A person convicted of multiple murders, the response noted, should not be set free after serving only fifteen years.
The submission warned that routinely ordering sentences to run together could send the message that the justice system fails to distinguish between the killing of one individual and the killing of many. Citing the principle of proportionality, the Punjab government maintained that each unlawful loss of life deserves its own distinct penalty. Combining all sentences into a single concurrent term, it argued, would lessen the weight of additional offences and create an artificial equivalence between taking one life and taking several.
The response also pointed out that allowing all sentences to run concurrently could imply that a convict of a single murder and a convict of several murders might be released after the same length of imprisonment. Referring to how lawmakers have treated especially grave crimes, the document highlighted special measures such as the restrictions on remission for certain offenders under the Anti‑Terrorism Act of 1997 and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act of 1997.
According to the Punjab government, imposing consecutive sentences in grave and heinous cases would not only bolster public confidence in criminal justice but also fulfill the deterrent and retributive purposes of punishment. Citing Section 4 of the Punjab Sentencing Act of 2019, the response reminded that sentencing aims to punish offenders, deter crime, reform and rehabilitate, and protect society.
The province stressed that consecutive sentences should not become routine; they should be reserved for exceptional circumstances where crimes are particularly brutal, morbid or inhuman and shock the public conscience. Examples given include homicide, kidnapping, abduction, sexual abuse and terrorism. The prosecution concluded that ordering consecutive terms in such serious, sensational offences, especially those directed against the human body, would help reinforce public faith, maintain social equilibrium and achieve the retributive and deterrent goals of punishment.