Can an accused challenge death sentences on the ground that the trial court did not call three material witnesses in a murder case involving an armed unlawful assembly?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a violent confrontation erupts in a semi‑urban locality of northern India when two rival community factions, each led by a different elder, clash over a disputed piece of agricultural land. The dispute escalates on a humid summer night when a group of armed men, assembled under the direction of the elder of the second faction, forcefully enters the residence of the elder of the first faction with the intent to eliminate the male members of his household. The intruders break down doors, pursue the occupants through the corridors, and open fire, killing five adult males and injuring two others who survive by escaping through a back window. The bodies are later discovered burned in a nearby field, and the surviving victims report the incident to the local police station.

The investigating agency registers an FIR that names thirty‑four individuals as participants in the unlawful assembly that carried out the murders. The trial court, after hearing the prosecution’s witnesses—most of whom are neighbours and relatives of the victims—convicts all thirty‑four accused. Ten of the convicted are sentenced to death on the ground that they were armed with firearms and actively participated in the common object of killing, while the remaining twenty‑four receive rigorous imprisonment for life. The trial court also records that three material witnesses, who had observed the assembly from a distance, were not called because the trial judge deemed their testimony “non‑essential.”

Following the convictions, a segment of the accused files a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the death sentences and the procedural omissions. The petitioners argue that the trial court’s refusal to summon the three witnesses violated the statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure to consider the entire material record before confirming a capital punishment. They further contend that the High Court must independently scrutinise the consistency of the prosecution’s evidence, rather than merely relying on a “four‑witness consistency” test that the trial court employed to uphold the convictions.

The legal problem, therefore, is two‑fold: first, whether the High Court is obligated under the procedural provisions governing confirmation of death sentences to re‑examine the whole evidentiary record afresh; and second, whether the omission of the three witnesses constitutes a fatal defect that warrants setting aside the death sentences or, at the very least, remanding the matter for a fresh consideration of the missing testimony. An ordinary factual defence—such as denying participation or challenging the credibility of hostile witnesses—does not address these procedural deficiencies, because the appeal is premised on the statutory requirement that the appellate court must not merely rubber‑stamp the trial court’s findings.

To resolve these issues, the appropriate remedy lies in filing a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under the provisions that empower the High Court to confirm or modify death sentences after a fresh appraisal of the material record. This route is distinct from a revision or a petition for bail, as the appeal directly engages the High Court’s statutory duty to scrutinise the entire evidence, including any witnesses that the lower court may have omitted. The appeal therefore seeks a judicial order either confirming the death sentences after a thorough review or quashing them on the ground of procedural infirmity.

In preparation for the appeal, the accused retain a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who specialises in criminal‑law strategy. The lawyer drafts a detailed petition that enumerates the statutory obligations of the High Court, cites precedents where the omission of material witnesses led to the setting aside of death sentences, and argues that the “four‑witness consistency” test, while useful in certain contexts, cannot supplant the mandatory fresh appraisal mandated by law. The petition also requests that the High Court summon the three omitted witnesses to ensure that the record is complete before any decision on the death sentences is rendered.

During the hearing, the prosecution’s counsel, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, maintains that the trial court exercised its discretion judiciously and that the witnesses in question would not have altered the outcome, given the overwhelming consistency of the twelve eyewitnesses who identified the accused as members of the armed assembly. The prosecution further argues that the High Court’s role is limited to verifying that the trial court applied the law correctly, not to re‑weigh the evidence anew.

The petitioners, represented by lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, counter that the statutory framework expressly requires the High Court to conduct an independent and exhaustive review of the material record before confirming a death sentence. They point out that the Code of Criminal Procedure obliges the appellate court to consider any evidence that could potentially affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case, and that the failure to call the three witnesses undermines the completeness of the record. Moreover, they submit that the “four‑witness consistency” test cannot be elevated to a rule of law, especially when the death penalty is at stake.

Because the appeal is lodged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the court is empowered to either confirm the death sentences after a fresh appraisal, modify them to life imprisonment, or set them aside altogether if it finds that the procedural lapse is material. The remedy sought—an appellate review under the statutory provisions governing confirmation of capital punishment—naturally follows from the procedural problem identified in the petition. It aligns with the legal principle that a High Court must not merely endorse the trial court’s findings but must independently verify that the statutory requirements for imposing the death penalty have been satisfied.

In sum, the fictional scenario mirrors the core legal issues of the analysed judgment: liability of members of an unlawful assembly for murder, the statutory duty of a High Court to re‑examine the entire evidentiary record before confirming a death sentence, and the significance of omitted witness testimony. By filing a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused pursue the precise procedural remedy that addresses both the substantive and procedural dimensions of their challenge, thereby ensuring that the ultimate decision on the death sentences rests on a complete and constitutionally sound record.

Question: Does the statutory framework compel the Punjab and Haryana High Court to undertake a fresh and independent appraisal of the entire material record before confirming the death sentences imposed by the trial court?

Answer: The factual backdrop shows that the trial court convicted thirty four accused and imposed death on ten of them after relying on the testimony of twelve eyewitnesses. The petitioners argue that the appellate court has a non‑negotiable duty to re‑examine every piece of evidence, including the three witnesses that were not called at trial. Under the procedural provisions governing confirmation of capital punishment, the High Court is not a mere rubber stamp for the lower court’s findings. It must independently verify that the legal thresholds for imposing death have been satisfied. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would stress that this duty arises from the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial and the statutory requirement that the appellate court consider the whole material record afresh. The High Court’s role therefore extends beyond checking for procedural regularity; it must assess the credibility, consistency and probative value of all evidence, even if the material was not examined by the trial judge. In practice, this means the court may summon additional witnesses, order a re‑examination of forensic reports or direct the prosecution to fill gaps in the record. Failure to do so could render the confirmation of death sentences vulnerable to being set aside on grounds of procedural infirmity. The practical implication for the accused is that a thorough review offers a realistic chance to demonstrate that the evidential foundation for the death penalty is shaky, especially when the prosecution’s case hinges on a limited set of eyewitnesses. For the prosecution, the requirement imposes a burden to ensure that the record is complete and that any omissions are justified. Consequently, the High Court is obligated to conduct a fresh appraisal, and any deviation from this duty may invite a successful challenge by the petitioners.

Question: How does the omission of the three material witnesses from the trial affect the validity of the death sentences, and can this omission be treated as a fatal defect warranting quashing or remand?

Answer: The omission of three witnesses who observed the unlawful assembly from a distance raises a serious procedural concern. The petitioners contend that the trial judge’s decision not to call these witnesses violated the duty to consider the entire material record before imposing the ultimate penalty. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that when the record is incomplete, especially in capital cases, the appellate court must treat the omission as a potential fatal defect. The law requires that any evidence capable of influencing the credibility of the prosecution’s case be examined. If the three witnesses could have corroborated or contradicted the testimony of the twelve eyewitnesses, their absence creates a lacuna that undermines the reliability of the conviction. The High Court therefore has the power to either set aside the death sentences outright or remand the matter to the trial court for a fresh hearing of the omitted testimony. Practically, this means the accused could obtain relief in the form of a stay of execution while the missing evidence is recorded. For the prosecution, the omission forces a reassessment of the strength of its case and may compel it to present additional corroborative material. The investigative agency might be directed to produce statements or to re‑interview the witnesses. The practical implication for the complainant is a possible delay in the finality of the judgment, but it also ensures that the conviction rests on a complete evidentiary foundation, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of the outcome. In sum, the failure to call the three material witnesses can be deemed a fatal procedural defect that justifies either quashing the death sentences or ordering a remand for a comprehensive evidentiary hearing.

Question: What is the legal significance of the “four witness consistency” test applied by the trial court, and does reliance on this test limit the High Court’s ability to re‑evaluate the evidence?

Answer: The “four witness consistency” test was employed by the trial court to assert that the identification of the accused by at least four eyewitnesses satisfied the evidentiary threshold for conviction. The petitioners argue that this mechanical test cannot replace the statutory duty of the appellate court to conduct an independent appraisal. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would explain that while the test may serve as a useful safeguard in complex cases, it is not a rule of law that binds the High Court. The appellate court retains the discretion to look beyond the numerical consistency of witnesses and to scrutinise the quality, motive and reliability of each testimony. The legal significance of the test lies in its evidential weight, not in its determinative effect. The High Court may consider whether the four witnesses were impartial, whether their statements were corroborated by forensic evidence, and whether any contradictions exist. Reliance on the test does not preclude the High Court from ordering the production of additional evidence or from questioning the credibility of the witnesses. Practically, this means the accused can argue that the test was applied in a perfunctory manner and that the High Court must examine the entire record, including the omitted witnesses, before confirming death sentences. For the prosecution, the test provides a baseline of evidential support but does not shield it from further scrutiny. The practical implication is that the High Court’s power to re‑evaluate remains intact, and any over‑reliance on the “four witness consistency” test without a full appraisal may lead to the setting aside of the death sentences.

Question: What specific procedural relief can the accused seek from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to address both the alleged evidentiary omissions and the statutory duty of fresh appraisal?

Answer: The accused can file a criminal appeal that seeks a combination of reliefs: a quashing of the death sentences on the ground of material procedural irregularities, a remand of the case to the trial court for a fresh hearing of the three omitted witnesses, and an order that the High Court conduct a comprehensive re‑appraisal of the entire evidentiary record. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the petition should specifically invoke the statutory requirement that the appellate court must consider every piece of evidence that could affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The relief sought may include a direction to the investigating agency to produce the statements of the omitted witnesses, an order for the trial court to record their testimony, and a stay of execution pending the outcome of the fresh appraisal. The practical effect of such relief is to ensure that the death sentences are not confirmed on an incomplete record, thereby safeguarding the constitutional right to a fair trial. For the prosecution, the relief imposes an obligation to fill evidentiary gaps and to demonstrate that the convictions would stand even after the additional testimony is considered. For the complainant, the relief may cause a delay in the final resolution but serves the larger interest of justice by ensuring that the ultimate penalty is imposed only after a thorough and complete evidentiary assessment. In essence, the accused can obtain a judicial order that mandates a fresh, exhaustive review of the material record, which may result in the modification, reduction or outright setting aside of the death sentences.

Question: Why does the appeal that challenges the death sentences and the failure to call three material witnesses fall within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than any other forum?

Answer: The factual backdrop of the case is that the trial court, sitting in the district where the violent clash occurred, convicted thirty‑four accused persons and imposed capital punishment on ten of them. Under the procedural framework governing confirmation of death sentences, the appellate authority is the High Court of the state in which the conviction was rendered. Because the trial court is located in a district that falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, that High Court is statutorily empowered to entertain a criminal appeal seeking confirmation, modification, or quashing of the death sentences. The High Court’s jurisdiction is not limited to reviewing legal errors; it also carries a mandatory duty to re‑examine the entire material record afresh before confirming a death sentence. This duty arises from the statutory requirement that the appellate court must consider any evidence that could affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case, including witnesses omitted at trial. Consequently, the appeal cannot be routed to a revision or a writ petition in another court because those remedies address different procedural defects. The High Court’s jurisdiction is further reinforced by the fact that the FIR, the charge sheet, and the trial proceedings were all lodged within the same state, creating a single chain of custody for the case file. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will therefore be the appropriate advocate to file the appeal, ensuring that the procedural mandate for a fresh appraisal is satisfied. By filing in the correct High Court, the accused also preserve their right to seek a comprehensive review that may result in the death sentences being confirmed, reduced to life imprisonment, or set aside if the omission of the three witnesses is deemed material. The High Court’s jurisdiction thus aligns with the statutory scheme, the geographical locus of the trial, and the nature of the relief sought, making it the proper forum for the appeal.

Question: What procedural steps must the accused follow to file a criminal appeal against the death sentences, and why does a purely factual defence become inadequate at this appellate stage?

Answer: The procedural route begins with the preparation of a detailed appeal memorandum that sets out the grounds for challenging the death sentences and the procedural lapse concerning the three omitted witnesses. The accused, through a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, must obtain certified copies of the trial court’s judgment, the charge sheet, and the complete trial record, including the statements of the twelve eyewitnesses. The appeal must be filed within the prescribed period from the date of the conviction, typically thirty days, unless a condonation is obtained. The memorandum should articulate that the High Court is statutorily obligated to conduct an independent and exhaustive review of the material record, not merely to endorse the trial court’s findings. It must specifically point out that the omission of material witnesses violates the duty to consider the whole evidentiary matrix before confirming a capital punishment. The appellant must also attach a certified list of the three witnesses whose testimony was not taken, along with any affidavits or statements they may have given to the investigating agency. After filing, the court issues a notice to the prosecution, which then files its counter‑affidavit. A hearing is scheduled, during which the appellate court may summon the omitted witnesses if it deems their evidence material. At this juncture, a factual defence—such as denying participation or challenging the credibility of hostile witnesses—does not suffice because the appeal is premised on a procedural defect that undermines the completeness of the record. The High Court’s role is to ensure that the statutory safeguards for imposing the death penalty are fully complied with; therefore, the focus shifts from factual innocence to procedural regularity. The accused must therefore rely on the procedural argument that the trial court’s failure to call the witnesses constitutes a fatal defect, which can only be remedied by the High Court’s fresh appraisal. Engaging lawyers in Chandigarh High Court for any ancillary writ applications, such as a bail petition, may be necessary, but the core appeal remains a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Question: How does the omission of the three material witnesses affect the statutory requirement for a fresh appraisal of the evidence, and what specific relief can the High Court grant based on this procedural infirmity?

Answer: The statutory framework obliges the appellate court to consider the entire material record before confirming a death sentence. The three witnesses who observed the unlawful assembly from a distance were identified in the FIR and in the investigation report as having provided statements that could corroborate or contradict the testimony of the twelve eyewitnesses already on record. Their omission means that the trial court did not present the complete evidentiary picture to the High Court, thereby breaching the duty to re‑examine all material evidence. This procedural lapse is not merely a technicality; it strikes at the heart of the fairness required when a capital punishment is at stake. Because the High Court must conduct an independent appraisal, it may either summon the omitted witnesses itself or direct the investigating agency to record their statements and place them on record. The relief that can be granted includes: (i) setting aside the death sentences and remanding the matter for a fresh trial where the omitted witnesses are examined; (ii) modifying the death sentences to life imprisonment if the High Court, after hearing the additional testimony, finds that the evidentiary threshold for capital punishment is not met; or (iii) confirming the death sentences if, even after a fresh appraisal that includes the three witnesses, the High Court is satisfied that the prosecution’s case remains robust. In any event, the High Court may also issue a direction for the prosecution to file a supplementary charge sheet incorporating the new evidence. The accused, represented by a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, must emphasize that the omission undermines the statutory requirement for a fresh appraisal, thereby justifying the grant of a remedial order. The High Court’s power to grant such relief is rooted in its appellate jurisdiction, which is designed to safeguard the rights of the accused, especially when the ultimate penalty is death. By addressing the procedural defect, the court ensures that the conviction rests on a complete and constitutionally sound evidentiary foundation.

Question: Why might an accused seek the assistance of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, and what strategic considerations guide the choice of lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court versus lawyers in Chandigarh High Court for this appeal?

Answer: Although the primary appeal must be filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused may also need to address ancillary matters that arise in the course of the proceedings, such as applying for interim bail, seeking a stay of execution, or filing a writ petition challenging the legality of the death sentence. These ancillary applications are typically entertained by the bench that sits in Chandigarh, the capital of the state, and are therefore dealt with by the Chandigarh High Court. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court ensures that the accused has representation that is familiar with the procedural nuances, filing requirements, and bench culture of that specific bench. Moreover, the strategic choice between lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court and lawyers in Chandigarh High Court hinges on the division of labour: the former specialize in drafting and arguing the substantive criminal appeal, focusing on the statutory duty of fresh appraisal and the omission of witnesses; the latter are adept at handling procedural safeguards, such as bail applications, and can quickly respond to any interim orders issued by the Chandigarh bench. Selecting lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court who have a track record of handling capital punishment appeals adds credibility to the appeal’s substantive arguments, while retaining lawyers in Chandigarh High Court ensures that any urgent relief, such as a stay of execution, can be obtained without delay. This dual representation also allows the accused to coordinate a cohesive strategy, where the substantive appeal and ancillary relief efforts reinforce each other, maximizing the chances of a favorable outcome. The combined expertise of both sets of counsel thus aligns with the procedural demands of the case and the practical realities of litigating before the High Court’s different benches.

Question: How can the accused effectively challenge the trial court’s refusal to summon the three material witnesses, and what procedural avenues are available before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to obtain a fresh appraisal of the evidential record?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the trial judge exercised discretion in not calling three eyewitnesses who observed the unlawful assembly from a distance. This discretion, however, is not absolute when the omission threatens the completeness of the record, especially in capital cases where the statutory duty to re‑examine the whole material record is heightened. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must first scrutinise the FIR, charge sheet, and the trial court’s judgment to identify any explicit references to the omitted witnesses and the rationale for their exclusion. The next step is to file a petition for revision or a criminal appeal that specifically raises the omission as a fatal procedural defect, invoking the statutory provision that obliges the appellate court to consider any evidence that could affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The petition should request that the High Court issue a direction under its inherent powers to summon the three witnesses, or alternatively, to remand the matter to the trial court for a fresh hearing of their testimony. In preparing the petition, the defence must attach affidavits or statements from the witnesses, even if they were not previously recorded, to demonstrate their materiality. The High Court, guided by precedent, may treat the failure to call essential witnesses as a breach of the duty to ensure a fair trial, thereby justifying a setting aside of the death sentences or at least a commutation pending a complete evidentiary hearing. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court should also anticipate the prosecution’s objection that the witnesses are “non‑essential” and be ready to counter with a detailed analysis of how their testimony could create reasonable doubt about the participation of specific accused. By framing the omission as a violation of the procedural safeguard that protects against wrongful imposition of the death penalty, the defence maximises the chance of obtaining a fresh appraisal, which could lead to a reduction of sentences or an outright acquittal of those whose involvement cannot be firmly established.

Question: What are the principal risks associated with the accused’s current custody status, and how can a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court structure a bail application or other relief measures while the appeal is pending?

Answer: The accused are presently in police custody following conviction and sentencing, which raises immediate concerns about the possibility of execution before the appellate process is exhausted. Under the constitutional guarantee of life, any delay in confirming a death sentence must be justified, and the investigating agency is required to obtain a death‑sentence confirmation order before proceeding with execution. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must first obtain the custody order and examine whether the accused have been produced before the High Court for confirmation, as failure to do so may constitute a procedural lapse that can be leveraged for bail. The bail application should emphasise the accused’s right to liberty pending a full hearing, the lack of any extraordinary circumstances justifying continued detention, and the potential for irreversible harm if execution proceeds. It is essential to attach the appeal copy, the judgment confirming the death sentences, and any medical reports indicating health conditions that could exacerbate the risk of execution. The counsel should also highlight that the High Court has the power to stay the execution pending the outcome of the appeal, especially where there are substantial questions about the evidentiary record. In addition to bail, the defence may seek a stay of execution under a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the procedural defects identified in the appeal render the confirmation of death sentences premature. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court must be prepared to counter the prosecution’s claim that the accused are dangerous or that bail would undermine the administration of justice, by presenting character references, lack of flight risk, and the fact that the accused are already serving life imprisonment for the same conduct. By combining a bail plea with a request for a stay of execution, the defence creates multiple layers of protection, ensuring that the accused remain alive to benefit from any favorable decision on the substantive appeal.

Question: In what ways can the defence undermine the prosecution’s reliance on the “four‑witness consistency” test, and what evidentiary strategies should be employed to demonstrate that this test is insufficient for confirming death sentences?

Answer: The prosecution’s argument rests on the premise that twelve eyewitnesses provided consistent accounts, satisfying a self‑imposed “four‑witness consistency” threshold. However, the legal principle governing confirmation of capital punishment requires a holistic appraisal of the entire record, not a mechanical test. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court should begin by dissecting the testimonies of the twelve witnesses, identifying any discrepancies in the description of the accused, the sequence of events, or the identification of weapons. Even subtle variations can erode the claim of absolute consistency. The defence should also bring forward the statements of the three omitted witnesses, whose perspectives may introduce contradictions or highlight alternative narratives, such as the presence of other armed individuals not previously identified. Additionally, forensic evidence—ballistic reports, DNA traces, or injury patterns—should be examined to see whether they corroborate or conflict with the eyewitness accounts. If the forensic analysis suggests that the bullets originated from weapons not carried by the accused, this undermines the prosecution’s narrative. The defence can also invoke the principle that the “four‑witness consistency” test is not a statutory requirement but a judicially created safeguard, and that in death‑penalty cases the courts must exercise heightened scrutiny. By submitting a detailed comparative chart (described in narrative form) of each witness’s testimony, the defence demonstrates that the purported consistency is superficial. Moreover, the defence should argue that reliance on a numeric consistency test disregards the quality of each testimony, such as the credibility of hostile witnesses, the possibility of coercion, or the influence of communal bias. By presenting these arguments, the defence seeks to persuade the High Court that the confirmation of death sentences cannot rest on a formulaic test, and that a fresh, comprehensive evaluation of all evidence—including the omitted witnesses and forensic findings—is indispensable.

Question: Which documents, forensic reports, and ancillary materials should the defence obtain and scrutinise before filing the appeal, and how can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court prioritise these items to build a robust challenge?

Answer: The defence’s investigative agenda must begin with the FIR, the charge sheet, and the trial court’s judgment to map the evidentiary timeline. Critical documents include the police investigation report, statements of all eyewitnesses (both those admitted and those omitted), the forensic laboratory’s ballistic analysis, autopsy reports of the five victims, and any medical examination reports of the surviving victims. The defence should also request the original photographs of the crime scene, the recovered firearms, and the chain‑of‑custody records for any seized weapons. These materials are essential to assess whether the prosecution’s linkage of the accused to the firearms is substantiated. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must file a formal application under the relevant procedural provision to compel the investigating agency to produce these documents, citing the need for a complete record before confirming a death sentence. Priority should be given to the forensic reports, as they can either corroborate or refute the claim that the accused fired the weapons. Next, the statements of the three omitted witnesses should be obtained, as their testimony may introduce reasonable doubt. The defence should also seek any audio or video recordings of the interrogation of the accused, to check for coercion or procedural irregularities. Once gathered, the documents must be analysed for inconsistencies, such as mismatched weapon calibers, discrepancies in wound trajectories, or contradictions between eyewitness descriptions and forensic findings. The defence can then craft a narrative that highlights these gaps, arguing that the material record is incomplete and unreliable. By systematically prioritising forensic evidence and the omitted witness statements, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court creates a factual foundation that supports a petition for a fresh appraisal, potentially leading to a reduction or set‑aside of the death sentences.

Question: How does the accused’s alleged participation in the unlawful assembly influence the defence strategy, and what arguments can be advanced to demonstrate a lack of personal involvement in the killings?

Answer: The prosecution’s case hinges on the doctrine that every member of an unlawful assembly sharing the common object of murder is liable, irrespective of who fired the weapon. To counter this, the defence must dissect the factual allegations of each accused’s role, distinguishing between mere presence and active participation. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court should obtain the precise statements of the eyewitnesses to identify whether any of them observed the accused handling firearms, issuing commands, or directly engaging in the shooting. If the evidence shows that certain accused were peripheral—perhaps standing at a distance, attempting to flee, or being coerced into the assembly—the defence can argue that the requisite mens rea for murder under the unlawful‑assembly doctrine is absent. Moreover, the defence can invoke the principle that liability for murder requires proof of a common object to kill, and that the mere fact of being present does not automatically satisfy this element. By presenting character witnesses, community testimonies, or even the accused’s own statements indicating fear or duress, the defence can portray the accused as victims of intimidation rather than perpetrators. Additionally, forensic evidence may reveal that the bullets recovered match weapons not linked to the accused in question, further weakening the claim of personal involvement. The defence should also highlight any disparity in the level of armament among the accused; those who did not possess firearms should be treated differently from those who did. By constructing a nuanced narrative that separates the roles within the assembly, the defence aims to persuade the High Court that the death sentences imposed on individuals lacking direct participation are disproportionate and contravene the principle of individualized sentencing. This strategy not only seeks to reduce or overturn the capital punishment but also to secure life imprisonment or acquittal for those whose involvement was minimal or involuntary.