SC rejects plea to enhance sentence after presidential remission

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to convert the life sentence of convict Tahreen Ilyas into the death penalty, holding that once the president has exercised the constitutional power to remit or reduce a sentence, any later enhancement must rest on a clear legal basis.

During the hearing, the superintendent of Jail Zhob in Balochistan appeared before the bench through video link. The court examined a report stating that the convict had completed 14 years in prison before receiving remission of the remaining term under a presidential general remission and being released.

The bench asked under which law 14 years had been treated as sufficient imprisonment for a life convict. It observed that, to its knowledge, Supreme Court precedents require a person serving a life sentence to undergo at least 17 years in prison. However, since the convict had already completed the sentence as implemented and had been released, the court said that legal question would be taken up in another appropriate case rather than in the present matter.

Questions over sentence enhancement

The court also raised the issue of how a second punishment could be imposed under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code after the original sentence had already been carried out. It observed that the trial court had convicted the accused in a murder case, that sentence had been executed, and any attempt to enhance the punishment at this stage would require strong legal justification.

The bench further noted that the Constitution gives the president authority to remit or reduce sentences and that this constitutional power had already been exercised in the case. It observed that if the law were to allow enhancement of a sentence after such remission, a constitutional amendment would be required.

In a light-hearted remark during the proceedings, the bench said "constitutional amendments are not exactly difficult these days."

The hearing also included an informal exchange with counsel in which the bench remarked that many people 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.

With the convict already released after completion of the sentence as reduced through remission, the court dismissed the appeal for enhancement.