SC rejects sentence enhancement after remission

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has ruled that once the president has exercised the constitutional power to remit or reduce a convict's sentence, any subsequent enhancement of that sentence required a clear legal basis.

The court dismissed an appeal seeking to convert the life imprisonment of convict Tahreen Ilyas into the death penalty, noting that the convict had already completed his sentence and been released.

During the hearing, the Superintendent of Jail, Zhob, Balochistan, appeared before the court via video link. The bench questioned him about the report stating that the convict had served 14 years in prison before being granted remission of the remaining sentence under a presidential general remission. The court asked under which law a 14-year period had been treated as sufficient for a life convict.

The bench observed that, to its knowledge, Supreme Court precedents require a life convict to undergo at least 17 years of imprisonment. However, since the convict had already been released, the court said the legal question would be examined in another appropriate case.

The court also questioned how a second punishment could be imposed under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code after the original sentence had already been executed. It observed that the trial court had convicted the accused for murder, the sentence had been implemented, and any attempt to enhance the punishment now required a strong legal justification.

The bench further remarked that the Constitution empowers the president to remit or reduce sentences and that this constitutional authority had already been exercised in the present case. It observed that if the law were to permit enhancement of a sentence after such remission, it would require a constitutional amendment, adding in a light-hearted remark that "constitutional amendments are not exactly difficult these days."

During an informal exchange with counsel, the bench also remarked that almost everyone in the lawyer's native area appeared to possess firearms. It further observed that if lawyers were searched, weapons might be recovered from as many as 70 percent of them.