Can the refusal to call neutral market witnesses be challenged through a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

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

Suppose a person is arrested after a violent incident in a rural market where a shopkeeper is fatally assaulted with a blunt weapon and a firearm is discharged, resulting in the shopkeeper’s death on the spot; the investigating agency registers an FIR for murder under the Indian Penal Code and the accused is subsequently tried before the Sessions Court.

The prosecution’s case hinges on the oral testimony of three close relatives of the deceased – the shopkeeper’s adult son, his sister‑in‑law, and his elder brother – who all claim to have witnessed the accused striking the victim and later firing the weapon. All three witnesses share a common motive to avenge the victim’s alleged involvement in a long‑standing commercial rivalry. The trial court accepts their statements as the sole basis for conviction, finding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 and imposing a life sentence.

During the trial, the defence counsel points out that the three witnesses are interested parties and that the trial court did not exercise its discretionary power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon independent eyewitnesses from the market or surrounding lanes. The defence also notes that the police diary was never examined under Section 172, and that the court failed to call any neutral villagers who might corroborate or contradict the hostile testimony. The accused therefore argues that the conviction rests on uncorroborated, hostile evidence and on a procedural lapse that undermines the fairness of the trial.

While the accused could pursue a standard appeal on the merits of the evidence, such an appeal would merely ask a higher trial court to re‑evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. The legal problem, however, is not merely a dispute over factual credibility; it is the alleged failure of the trial court to fulfil its statutory duty to consider independent testimony when the primary witnesses are hostile. This procedural deficiency, if left unaddressed, would set a precedent that allows convictions on the sole basis of interested testimony without any safeguard of corroboration.

Recognizing that the ordinary appeal route does not directly confront the procedural irregularity, the accused’s counsel decides to file a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the appropriate remedy because it empowers the High Court to examine whether a subordinate court has committed a jurisdictional error, failed to exercise a discretionary power, or acted against the principles of natural justice. The revision petition specifically challenges the trial court’s refusal to summon independent witnesses and its omission to call for the police diary, arguing that these omissions constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice.

The accused engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who drafts the revision petition, meticulously citing precedents that require corroboration of hostile testimony and emphasizing the discretionary nature of Section 540. The petition also references the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the mere presence of interested witnesses does not, by law, demand automatic corroboration, but that the trial court must exercise caution and, where necessary, summon neutral witnesses to ensure a reliable evidentiary record.

In parallel, the accused consults lawyers in Chandigarh High Court to compare procedural strategies across jurisdictions, noting that similar revision petitions have succeeded in Chandigarh when the High Court found that the lower court had neglected its duty to call independent witnesses in murder trials. This comparative insight reinforces the argument that the Punjab and Haryana High Court should not hesitate to intervene where the trial court’s discretion was exercised in a manner that jeopardises the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The revision petition therefore seeks two principal reliefs: first, a declaration that the Sessions Court erred in refusing to exercise its power under Section 540, and second, an order directing the trial court to reopen the evidentiary stage, summon neutral market witnesses, and examine the police diary before any conviction can be affirmed. The petition also requests that the High Court stay the execution of the life sentence pending the outcome of the revision, thereby protecting the accused from irreversible deprivation of liberty.

Why does the remedy lie before the Punjab and Haryana High Court? The conviction was handed down by a Sessions Court, which is a subordinate criminal court. Under the hierarchy of criminal procedure, any alleged error of law or jurisdiction by such a court can be examined by the High Court through a revision. The High Court possesses the authority to quash or modify the order if it finds that the lower court failed to observe mandatory procedural safeguards, such as the power to summon independent witnesses. Moreover, the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 397 is expressly designed to correct procedural lapses that could not be remedied by a regular appeal, making it the appropriate forum for this challenge.

In preparing the petition, the counsel highlights that the trial court’s reliance on hostile, interested witnesses without any corroboration runs contrary to the principle that evidence must be examined with “great care” when the witnesses have a vested interest. The petition cites authorities that, while not imposing a rigid rule of mandatory corroboration, require the court to be vigilant and, where necessary, to invoke Section 540 to secure independent testimony. By demonstrating that the trial court omitted this step, the petition argues that the conviction is unsafe and that the High Court must intervene.

Finally, the revision petition underscores that the accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Constitution, is jeopardised when the evidentiary process is incomplete. The petition therefore frames the procedural defect not as a mere technicality but as a violation of the accused’s right to due process, warranting High Court scrutiny. If the Punjab and Haryana High Court agrees, it can either set aside the conviction outright or remand the case back to the Sessions Court for a fresh hearing with the requisite independent witnesses, thereby ensuring that the legal standards of proof and procedural fairness are upheld.

Question: Does the Sessions Court’s refusal to exercise its discretionary power to summon independent market witnesses amount to a jurisdictional error that can be corrected through a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the conviction was secured solely on the testimony of three relatives of the deceased, all of whom possessed a clear motive to avenge the victim’s alleged role in a commercial rivalry. Under the procedural framework, a criminal court is vested with a discretionary authority to call additional witnesses when the primary evidence is hostile or interested. The trial judge’s decision to forgo this step, despite the evident hostility, raises a serious question of whether the court abdicated a statutory duty that safeguards the reliability of evidence. A jurisdictional error, in this context, is not limited to a misinterpretation of law but extends to a failure to perform a mandatory procedural safeguard that the law envisions as essential for a fair trial. The High Court, when entertained with a revision, is empowered to scrutinise whether the lower court’s omission has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The accused’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, will argue that the omission is not a mere error of appreciation but a breach of the court’s duty to ensure that the evidentiary record is complete and unbiased. If the High Court is persuaded that the trial court’s discretion was exercised in a manner that undermined the principles of natural justice, it can set aside the conviction or remand the matter for a fresh evidentiary stage. This remedial power is precisely what the revision mechanism is designed to address, making the petition a viable avenue to correct the procedural lapse and protect the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

Question: In what way does reliance on hostile, interested witnesses without any corroboration infringe the accused’s right to a fair trial and the principles of natural justice?

Answer: The three relatives who testified against the accused were not neutral observers; they were directly affected by the victim’s death and shared a common motive to see the alleged perpetrator punished. The law recognises that such interested testimony must be approached with heightened caution, requiring the trial court to seek corroborative material or independent witnesses to validate the reliability of the statements. When the Sessions Court accepted these hostile accounts as the sole basis for conviction, it effectively bypassed the safeguard that prevents convictions on uncorroborated, biased evidence. This omission strikes at the core of the accused’s constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, which mandates that evidence be examined with “great care” when the witnesses have a vested interest. Moreover, the principle of natural justice obliges the adjudicating authority to provide a balanced hearing, which includes the opportunity to challenge and test the credibility of hostile witnesses through cross‑examination and corroboration. By not summoning neutral market witnesses, the court denied the accused the chance to contest the narrative presented by the interested parties, thereby compromising the adversarial process. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court have highlighted similar precedents where higher courts intervened to rectify convictions that rested on uncorroborated hostile testimony, underscoring the judiciary’s duty to prevent miscarriages of justice. Consequently, the reliance on such uncorroborated evidence not only undermines the factual foundation of the conviction but also violates procedural fairness, justifying High Court intervention to safeguard the accused’s rights.

Question: What specific relief can the revision petition seek from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and how would a stay of execution of the life sentence operate pending the outcome?

Answer: The revision petition is crafted to achieve two principal objectives. First, it seeks a declaratory order that the Sessions Court erred in refusing to invoke its discretionary power to summon independent witnesses, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe. Second, it requests a mandatory direction for the lower court to reopen the evidentiary stage, call neutral market witnesses, and examine the police diary to construct a comprehensive record. In addition, the petition asks the High Court to stay the execution of the life sentence until the revision is finally decided. A stay of execution is a provisional remedy that temporarily suspends the enforcement of the sentence, preventing the accused from being deprived of liberty while the High Court evaluates the alleged procedural defect. This stay does not prejudice the final judgment; it merely preserves the status quo to avoid irreversible harm should the High Court later find the conviction untenable. The accused’s lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will argue that without a stay, the life sentence could be carried out before the High Court has an opportunity to examine the merits of the revision, resulting in a permanent miscarriage of justice. The High Court, upon being satisfied that the procedural lapse is substantial and that the accused’s right to liberty is at stake, may grant the stay, thereby ensuring that the accused remains in custody but not subject to the finality of the sentence. This approach balances the interests of the State in enforcing criminal law with the fundamental rights of the accused, providing a fair avenue for judicial review without unduly delaying justice.

Question: How does the failure to examine the police diary under the relevant procedural provision affect the evidentiary completeness, and what powers does the High Court have to remedy this omission?

Answer: The police diary is a contemporaneous record of the investigating agency’s observations, statements, and actions at the time of the incident. It often contains details about the scene, the sequence of events, and any statements made by witnesses that may not have been presented in court. By not calling for the police diary, the Sessions Court omitted a potentially crucial source of corroborative evidence that could either support or contradict the hostile testimonies of the relatives. This omission creates a lacuna in the evidentiary record, undermining the completeness and reliability of the material on which the conviction rests. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under the revisionary remedy, can direct the lower court to produce and consider the police diary. It may also order that the diary be examined in the presence of the parties, allowing for cross‑examination of any statements recorded therein. The High Court’s power extends to remanding the case for a fresh evidentiary hearing, ensuring that the diary is integrated into the trial record. This remedial step not only addresses the procedural defect but also aligns the proceedings with the constitutional mandate of a fair trial. By mandating the inclusion of the police diary, the High Court can either reinforce the prosecution’s case if the diary corroborates the hostile witnesses, or it may reveal inconsistencies that could lead to the quashing of the conviction. The ability to order such a remedial measure underscores the High Court’s role in correcting procedural oversights that have a material impact on the outcome of criminal proceedings.

Question: Could the accused pursue an alternative extraordinary remedy, such as a writ of certiorari, instead of a revision, and what are the comparative advantages of a revision petition in this scenario?

Answer: While a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available to challenge jurisdictional errors of inferior courts, it is generally confined to cases where the lower court has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority. In the present facts, the Sessions Court possessed jurisdiction over the murder trial but is alleged to have misused its discretion by not summoning independent witnesses and by neglecting the police diary. A revision petition, on the other hand, is expressly designed to address such discretionary lapses and procedural irregularities that do not amount to a complete lack of jurisdiction. The accused’s lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will argue that a revision is the more appropriate avenue because it allows the High Court to scrutinise the exercise of discretion, order a fresh evidentiary stage, and stay the sentence, all within a single procedural framework. Moreover, a revision does not require the higher court to re‑appreciate the evidence de novo; it merely assesses whether the lower court’s procedural conduct resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This makes the remedy less intrusive yet sufficiently potent to correct the identified defects. In contrast, a writ of certiorari would demand a demonstration that the Sessions Court acted ultra vires, a higher threshold that may be difficult to satisfy given that the court did have jurisdiction. Therefore, while both remedies aim to protect the accused’s rights, the revision petition offers a more tailored and effective mechanism to address the specific procedural failures highlighted in the case, ensuring that the High Court can provide comprehensive relief without overstepping its supervisory role.

Question: Why does the procedural flaw concerning the non‑summoning of neutral market witnesses make a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the proper remedy rather than a regular appeal on the merits?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the Sessions Judge relied exclusively on the testimony of three relatives who possessed a clear motive to protect the accused. The law obliges a criminal court to exercise its discretionary power to call additional witnesses when the primary evidence is hostile or interested. The failure to invoke that power is not a mere error of judgment about credibility; it is a breach of a mandatory procedural safeguard designed to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial. A regular appeal is limited to re‑examining the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. It does not permit the appellate court to question whether the lower court exercised its statutory discretion correctly. The revision jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, is expressly created to examine jurisdictional errors, failures to exercise discretionary powers and violations of natural justice. Because the Sessions Court omitted to summon independent market witnesses and to examine the police diary, the High Court can intervene to determine whether the conviction rests on a manifest miscarriage of justice. The High Court’s power to quash or remit the order arises from its supervisory role over subordinate courts. This supervisory function cannot be invoked through a normal appeal. Consequently, the accused must approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a revision petition to obtain a judicial review of the procedural lapse. The petition will set out the factual background, highlight the omission of the court’s duty to call neutral witnesses, and request that the High Court either set aside the conviction or remand the case for a fresh evidentiary hearing. The remedy lies before the Punjab and Haryana High Court because only that forum can correct the procedural defect that the ordinary appeal route cannot address, thereby safeguarding the accused’s constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.

Question: In what way does a factual defence based solely on the accused’s denial of participation fail to overcome the procedural defect identified in the trial court’s handling of hostile testimony?

Answer: The accused’s factual defence rests on the assertion that he did not strike the victim and did not fire the weapon. While such a denial is a legitimate element of the defence, the law requires that the evidentiary record itself be complete and reliable before any factual defence can be meaningfully assessed. When the trial court accepts hostile testimony without seeking corroboration, it creates a gap in the evidentiary process that cannot be cured by the accused’s statements alone. The procedural defect lies in the court’s refusal to exercise its power to summon neutral market witnesses who could either confirm or contradict the relatives’ accounts. Without that independent testimony, the record is one‑sided and the accused is denied the opportunity to challenge the credibility of the hostile witnesses through cross‑examination of other eyewitnesses. Moreover, the police diary, which could contain contemporaneous notes on the scene, was never examined, depriving the defence of material that might support an alternative version of events. The legal principle is that procedural safeguards are not optional; they are intended to ensure that the factual defence is tested against a balanced set of evidence. When those safeguards are ignored, the conviction rests on an incomplete record, and the accused’s denial, however sincere, cannot be given its full effect. The High Court, in reviewing the case, will therefore focus on whether the trial court’s omission undermined the fairness of the proceedings, rather than merely re‑weighing the accused’s denial against the hostile testimony. This explains why a factual defence alone is insufficient at this stage and why the revision petition must address the procedural lapse to obtain any meaningful relief.

Question: Why might the accused consider engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court in addition to a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court when preparing the revision petition?

Answer: The accused’s primary objective is to secure a competent advocate who understands the nuances of High Court revision practice and can craft persuasive arguments about the procedural breach. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will be familiar with the specific supervisory jurisdiction of that court, the procedural rules governing revisions, and the precedents that have shaped the High Court’s approach to hostile testimony. However, the accused may also seek advice from lawyers in Chandigarh High Court because comparative jurisprudence can be valuable. The Chandigarh High Court has dealt with similar factual scenarios where the lower court failed to call independent witnesses, and its judgments provide illustrative reasoning that can be cited to strengthen the revision petition. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court allows the accused to obtain a fresh perspective on how other High Courts have interpreted the duty to summon neutral witnesses, which can be persuasive when arguing that the Punjab and Haryana High Court should follow a consistent line of reasoning. Additionally, the legal market in Chandigarh may offer advocates with specialized experience in criminal revisions, and the accused may wish to compare fee structures, availability, and strategic approaches before finalising counsel. By consulting both a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court and lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, the accused can ensure that the petition is drafted with a comprehensive understanding of relevant case law, procedural tactics, and advocacy style, thereby maximising the chances of obtaining a favorable order to set aside the conviction or remit the matter for a fresh hearing.

Question: What specific relief can the revision petition seek from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and what are the limits of the High Court’s authority in granting such relief?

Answer: The revision petition can request a declaration that the Sessions Judge erred in refusing to exercise its discretionary power to summon independent witnesses and to examine the police diary. It can also ask the High Court to set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the evidentiary record is incomplete and the trial was a miscarriage of justice. In addition, the petition may seek an order directing the Sessions Court to reopen the evidentiary stage, to call neutral market witnesses, and to consider the police diary before any judgment is affirmed. The petition can further request a stay on the execution of the life sentence pending determination of the revision, thereby protecting the accused from irreversible deprivation of liberty. The High Court’s authority, however, is not unlimited. It cannot substitute its own assessment of the credibility of the witnesses for that of the trial court unless it finds a clear procedural defect. The High Court may remit the case for a fresh hearing, modify the order, or quash the conviction, but it cannot impose a new penalty or alter the substantive law. Moreover, the stay of execution is discretionary and may be granted only if the High Court is satisfied that the accused is likely to suffer irreparable harm and that there is a prima facie case of procedural irregularity. The High Court must also respect the principle of finality of judgments and intervene only where the procedural lapse is substantial enough to affect the fairness of the trial. Thus, while the revision petition can achieve significant relief, the High Court’s power is confined to correcting procedural errors and ensuring that the trial proceeds in accordance with the law, without overstepping into re‑appraisal of factual determinations absent a demonstrable miscarriage of justice.

Question: How does the trial court’s refusal to exercise its discretionary power to summon independent market witnesses create a procedural defect that can be attacked in a revision, and what specific relief can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court seek to remedy that defect?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the conviction rests solely on the testimony of three relatives who share a clear motive to avenge the victim. Under the procedural framework, a criminal court possesses a discretionary authority to call neutral eyewitnesses when the primary witnesses are hostile or interested. The trial court’s omission of that step deprives the accused of the benefit of a balanced evidentiary record, which is a cornerstone of a fair trial. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must first establish that the omission is not a mere lapse of judgment but a failure to fulfil a statutory duty that safeguards the accused’s right to due process. The revision petition should therefore articulate that the trial court acted beyond the limits of its discretion by refusing to consider independent testimony, thereby creating a manifest miscarriage of justice. The petition can request a declaration that the lower court erred, an order directing the Sessions Court to reopen the evidentiary stage, and a direction to summon neutral market witnesses who were present at the scene. Additionally, the petition should seek a stay of the life sentence pending compliance with the order, because the execution of the sentence before rectifying the procedural defect would amount to irreversible deprivation of liberty. By framing the defect as a violation of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, the counsel can persuade the revising court that the only appropriate remedy is to set aside the conviction or remit the matter for a fresh hearing with the requisite independent witnesses, thereby restoring procedural integrity.

Question: In what ways does reliance on hostile, interested witnesses affect the standard of proof in a murder case, and how can a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court structure evidentiary arguments in the revision to undermine the conviction?

Answer: The prosecution’s case hinges on the oral accounts of three relatives who possess a vested interest in securing a conviction. While the law permits reliance on such testimony, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that the court be satisfied of the witnesses’ reliability and that their statements be corroborated by independent evidence. The absence of any neutral corroboration raises a serious doubt about whether the prosecution has met this high threshold. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court should therefore focus on exposing the inherent weakness of the evidence by highlighting inconsistencies, the lack of contemporaneous documentation, and the failure to produce any physical or forensic corroboration. The argument can be built around the principle that hostile testimony must be examined with heightened scrutiny, and that the trial court’s acceptance of uncorroborated statements constitutes a breach of the evidentiary standards. By emphasizing that the witnesses’ motive to avenge the victim creates a bias that was not counterbalanced by any independent observation, the counsel can argue that the conviction is unsafe. The revision should request that the High Court scrutinize the credibility assessment made by the Sessions Court, and if it finds the assessment unreasonable, direct a re‑evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, the counsel can move for the quashing of the conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby compelling the revising court to either set aside the judgment or remand the case for a fresh trial with proper evidentiary safeguards.

Question: What are the implications of the accused’s continued custody for bail and the urgency of interim relief, and how should a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court argue for a stay of the life sentence pending the outcome of the revision?

Answer: The accused remains in custody after the Sessions Court imposed a life sentence, which intensifies the need for immediate interim relief. Custody not only restricts personal liberty but also subjects the accused to the harsh conditions of prison, potentially affecting health and the ability to prepare a robust defence. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must therefore demonstrate that the procedural defects identified in the revision petition create a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice, which justifies the grant of bail or at least a stay of execution. The argument should be anchored on the principle that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction includes the power to preserve the status quo while it examines whether the lower court erred. By showing that the trial court failed to summon independent witnesses and ignored the police diary, the counsel can establish that the conviction rests on a shaky evidentiary foundation. Consequently, the risk of irreversible deprivation of liberty outweighs any interest in maintaining the sentence during the pendency of the revision. The petition should request that the High Court issue a direction to release the accused on bail, subject to reasonable conditions, or at the very least stay the life sentence until the revision is finally decided. Emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of the right to a fair trial, the counsel can argue that proceeding with the sentence before rectifying the procedural lapse would contravene the very essence of justice, thereby compelling the court to intervene promptly.

Question: Which documentary and forensic materials must be examined to expose deficiencies in the investigation, and how can lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court leverage gaps in the police diary to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice?

Answer: A meticulous review of the investigation file is essential to uncover procedural lapses that undermine the conviction. The primary documents include the FIR, the police diary, the medical post‑mortem report, the weapon recovery record, and any statements recorded by the investigating agency. The police diary, in particular, is a contemporaneous record of the investigation and should contain details of the scene, the identification of witnesses, and any attempts to locate neutral eyewitnesses. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court should scrutinise the diary for omissions such as the failure to note the presence of other market shoppers, the absence of any attempt to record statements from neutral villagers, and any discrepancies between the diary entries and the testimony of the relatives. If the diary shows that the investigating agency did not follow standard procedures to secure independent evidence, this gap can be presented as a clear indication of investigative negligence. Additionally, forensic evidence such as ballistic analysis of the discharged firearm, fingerprint recovery, and the condition of the weapon should be examined to see whether they corroborate the prosecution’s narrative. Any lack of forensic linkage between the accused and the weapon further weakens the case. By highlighting these documentary deficiencies, the counsel can argue that the trial court’s reliance on uncorroborated oral testimony, without the benefit of a thorough investigative record, constitutes a miscarriage of justice. The revision petition should therefore request that the High Court order a fresh examination of the police diary, compel the production of any missing forensic reports, and consider the impact of these omissions on the safety of the conviction.

Question: How can comparative jurisprudence from Punjab and Haryana High Court and Chandigarh High Court be employed to persuade the revising court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, and what precedents should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court highlight?

Answer: Comparative jurisprudence offers a powerful tool to demonstrate that higher courts have previously intervened in similar circumstances where the trial court failed to summon independent witnesses or ignored critical investigative material. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court should identify decisions from both jurisdictions where the High Court exercised its revisionary powers to set aside convictions on the ground of procedural irregularities, especially those involving hostile witnesses and the non‑examination of the police diary. By citing cases where the courts emphasized the necessity of neutral testimony to satisfy the standard of proof, the counsel can illustrate a consistent judicial approach that prioritises fairness over procedural complacency. Moreover, highlighting instances where the High Court stayed a life sentence pending a thorough re‑evaluation of the evidentiary record underscores the principle that liberty cannot be curtailed on an unsound foundation. These precedents serve to reinforce the argument that the revising court has both the authority and the duty to correct manifest errors that jeopardise the accused’s right to a fair trial. The counsel should therefore weave these comparative rulings into the revision petition, demonstrating that the present case aligns with the established line of authority and that a failure to act would create a dangerous precedent. By presenting a cohesive narrative that blends factual deficiencies with robust jurisprudential support, the lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can persuade the revising court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, either by quashing the conviction outright or by remanding the matter for a fresh hearing with the requisite procedural safeguards.