Punjab seeks review of SC decisions on rape case, multiple murder sentencing

On January 29, the Punjab government initiated legal proceedings to contest three Supreme Court decisions encompassing judgments on a sexual assault case, the concurrent sentencing of a multiple murderer, and the acquittal of a proclaimed offender. These review petitions were lodged by the Additional Prosecutor General of Punjab, Ahmad Raza Gilani.

In one of the disputed judgments, the Supreme Court had classified a case of sexual assault as consensual adultery. The Punjab government’s review petition argued that this decision undermines the dignity and social standing of the victim, incorrectly labeling the incident and failing to consider the legal and societal implications for the child born from the assault. The petition emphasized the permanent stigma now borne by the victim and her family due to the court’s ruling.

Another focal point of the Punjab government’s challenge is a decision that allowed a convict, responsible for the deaths of sixteen individuals, to serve his sentences concurrently rather than consecutively. This case, related to a violent feud between two families resulting in twenty-one deaths, was argued to fall under the purview of anti-terrorism laws, which would typically require a more stringent sentencing approach.

The review petition highlighted past Supreme Court directives that sentences should be determined based on the specific facts of each case, suggesting that the decision to allow concurrent sentences diminishes the severity of the crime.

Additionally, the Punjab government has appealed against the Supreme Court’s judgment which acquitted a proclaimed offender along with other accused in a criminal case. This petition seeks to overturn the acquittal and readdress the legal outcomes for the accused involved.

This initiative marks a significant move by the Punjab Prosecution Department, which has rarely filed review petitions against Supreme Court decisions. The last such petition was filed in 2015, concerning the non-acceptance of DNA evidence in a legal decision dated back to 2015.