RAJ BAIG and 6 others vs THE STATE
This petition was filed by seven convicts seeking a judicial direction to the jail authorities to treat their multiple sentences of imprisonment for life as running concurrently rather than consecutively. The petitioners had been convicted on three counts for murder and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to imprisonment for life on each count by the High Court. The jail authorities, citing the absence of an explicit order for concurrency in the appellate judgment, treated the sentences as consecutive under Section 35(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether multiple sentences of life imprisonment should run consecutively or concurrently in the absence of a specific direction. The Court, relying on established precedents and the statutory limitation that a person cannot be imprisoned for more than 25 years, held that the sentences should run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that where multiple life sentences are awarded, they are to be served concurrently, ensuring the total period of incarceration does not exceed the statutory maximum limit of 25 years.
- Can multiple sentences of imprisonment for life be ordered to run concurrently?
- Does the law impose a maximum limit on the total period of imprisonment for a convict?
- Are jail authorities required to treat multiple life sentences as consecutive if the court judgment is silent on the matter?
- Section 35, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 35(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Through the instant petition the petitioners had sought direction to the jail authorities to, treat the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the petitioner/appellants as concurrent.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that Raj Baig, Hakam Baig sons of Riaz Baig, Sikandar Baig son of Raj Baig, Muhammad Iqbal son of Wallayat Baig, Ashraf Baig son of Karamat Baig, Maratib Baig son of Inayat Baig and Rehmat Ali son of Asghar Ali were convicted by the learned Judge, ATA, Lahore vide judgment dated 11-11-1997 on three counts for causing death of Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Fayyaz and Were sentenced, to death on each count. They challenged their conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No, 661 of 1997 which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 24-1-2001 whereby their conviction was maintained, however, the sentence was altered to imprisonment for life on each count with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The remaining sentences were kept intact.
3. ' The report was called for from Superintendent, Central Jail, Lahore wherein it has been stated that as there was no mention in the judgment of this Court in the appeal that the sentences should run concurrent, therefore, according to the Jail record their sentence is being considered as consecutive under section 35(1), of Cr.P.C.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and far the State have been heard and record has been perused.
5. According to sections 35 and 397 of Cr.P.C., a person cannot be imprisoned for more than a period of 25 years. After perusing the judgment dated 18-10-2000 passed by Honourable Supreme Court in Criminal. Appeals No,289 of 1997, No,290 of 1997, 291 of 1997, and 2000 PCr.LJ 1905, and unreported judgments passed in Writ Petitions No,8795 of 1996 and No,16836 of 1996 and judgment passed by us in Writ petition No .11085 of 1998 dated 4-12-2001 wherein on similar circumstances life imprisonment on different counts was ordered to run concurrently, we are persuaded to allow this petition and order that the sentence of the appellants/petitioners on different counts be.
6. Considered to run concurrently. However, the other sentences will remain intact.