MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs STATE and another
The petitioner, convicted in two separate criminal cases for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought a direction for his sentences of life imprisonment to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The petitioner had been sentenced to death (later commuted to life imprisonment) in one case and life imprisonment in another, with both sentences upheld by the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether multiple sentences of life imprisonment should be served consecutively or concurrently, given the statutory definition of life imprisonment. The Court held that imprisonment for life necessarily envisages an imprisonment of twenty-five years in accordance with the spirit of Section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Emphasizing that the concept of life is a single span, the Court determined that life imprisonment can only be for one life. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, ordering that the sentences of life imprisonment imposed in the two separate cases run concurrently, while maintaining the previously imposed fines.
- Whether multiple sentences of life imprisonment should be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively?
- Does the concept of life imprisonment as a single span of twenty-five years under Section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require concurrent sentencing for multiple life terms?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 57, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner was accused in case FIR No, 113 registered at Police Station Channi Goth on 11.06.1998 for offences under Sections 302/34, PPC and was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Bahawalpur who vide his judgment dated 24.03.1999 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death and ordered to pay Rs, 5,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to undergo six months. The petitioner was also tried in case FIR No, 213 registered at Police Station Cana: Bahawalpur on 10.06.1998 for offences under Sections 302/34, PPC by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Bahawalpur and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay Rs, 3,00,000/- as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment thereof to undergo six months. The petitioner filed two seParate appeals Bearing Nos, 8 and 9 of 1999 before this Court. The death sentence of the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No, 8 is converted into imprisonment for life while compensation was remained maintained. On the other, hand Criminal Appeal No, 9 of 1999 was dismissed. The petitioner preferred Jail Appeals No, 117 and 118 of 1999 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which were dismissed with a single judgment vide order dated 06.11.2000. Now through this petition the petitioner has prayed that sentences of life imprisonment passed in above said appeals may kindly be ordered to run concurrently.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No, 2 is commuting the sentences passed against the petitioner in both the appeals consecutively which is against the provisions of Section 397, Cr.P.C. and Section 57, PPC. He maintains that imprisonment for life could only be for one life and that should not be more than twenty-five years as concept of life being only one span, therefore, the sentences should be ordered to run concurrently. Reliance is placed on the cases of Shaukat Hayat v. Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi [2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1905], Allah Rakha v. The State [2000 P.Cr.L.J. 743], Sanaf Gul alias Sunny v. The State [2005 P.Cr.L.J. 370] and Muhammad Asif v. The State [PLD 2003 Lahore 512].
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the above cited law on the point we are of the view that imprisonment for life necessarily envisages an imprisonment of twenty-five years in accordance with the spirit of Section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The sentence of life imprisonment is only the next sentence after the sentence of death and the concept of life is only one span, therefore, the imprisonment of life can only be for one life. It would serve the interest of justice if the sentences passed against the petitioner in Jail Petitions No, 117 and 118 of 1999 by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan will run concurrently. This petition is allowed and the sentences of life imprisonment passed in cases FIR No, 113 at Police Station Channi Goth, District Bahawalpur and FIR No, 213 at Police Station Cantt: Bahawalpur are ordered to run concurrently. It goes without saying that, the sentence of fine will remain intact. This petition is disposed of.