Can a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturn a conviction where the charge is vague and the scar based identification is questionable?

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

Suppose a person is arrested after the investigating agency files an FIR alleging that a group of armed individuals broke into a residential compound in a semi‑urban area, assaulted the occupants, and stole valuable items, including jewellery and cash, on a night when a local festival was being celebrated. The complainant, who is a small‑scale trader, reports the incident to the police, and the FIR lists the accused as “the three persons who were seen fleeing the scene” without naming any specific individual. The police subsequently detain three persons who happen to be neighbours of the complainant, and the prosecution relies primarily on the testimony of the complainant’s family members, who claim that the accused were identified by a distinctive scar on the forearm. The trial court convicts all three under the offence of dacoity, imposing a rigorous imprisonment term of seven years, based largely on the identification testimony and the recovered stolen articles.

The legal problem that emerges from this factual matrix is twofold. First, the charge framed against the accused is defective because it fails to disclose the precise nature of the participation of each accused in the alleged dacoity; it merely alleges that “the accused were part of the gang” without specifying whether they were principals, abettors, or merely present. Second, the identification evidence is questionable, as the witnesses belong to the complainant’s extended family and have a history of commercial rivalry with the accused, raising a serious doubt about the reliability of their statements. At the stage of the conviction, a simple factual defence on the ground of mistaken identity does not suffice, because the defect in the charge deprives the accused of proper notice of the case against them, and the evidential infirmities call for a higher‑order judicial intervention.

In such circumstances, the appropriate procedural remedy is not a fresh appeal on the merits of the evidence alone, but a petition for revision under the inherent powers of the High Court to examine the legality of the conviction and the adequacy of the charge. A revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court can be invoked when a subordinate court commits a jurisdictional error, such as framing an improper charge or relying on unreliable identification, which goes to the root of the conviction. The revision seeks to set aside the conviction on the ground that the charge was not sufficiently specific to inform the accused of the case they must meet, and that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The petition must articulate that the Sessions Court erred in its discretion by not ensuring that the charge complied with the requirement of clear notice, a principle enshrined in criminal procedural law. It should also highlight that the identification evidence is tainted by bias, as the witnesses are relatives of the complainant and have a vested interest in securing a conviction against the accused. By raising these points, the revision petition invites the Punjab and Haryana High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to examine the record, assess the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the conviction can stand in the face of a defective charge.

To draft a robust revision petition, the accused must engage a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who is well‑versed in criminal procedural nuances. The counsel will frame the petition by citing the defect in the charge as a violation of the principle that an accused must be informed of the specific acts alleged against them. The petition will also rely on precedents where the High Court has quashed convictions on similar grounds of unreliable identification and procedural irregularities. By doing so, the petition positions the matter squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court to correct a miscarriage of justice.

While the accused could theoretically seek a bail order or file an appeal on the merits, such remedies would not address the fundamental flaw that the charge itself is infirm. An appeal on the merits presupposes that the charge is valid; it merely challenges the assessment of evidence. Here, the defect in the charge is fatal because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount a proper defence. Consequently, the remedy must target the procedural defect itself, which is precisely the domain of a revision petition under the inherent powers of the High Court.

The revision petition will request that the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the conviction, annul the sentence, and direct the release of the accused, given that they have already served a substantial portion of the term. It will also seek an order directing the investigating agency to either amend the FIR to reflect a proper charge or to close the case if the evidence does not support a dacoity charge. Such an order would align with the interest‑of‑justice test, which cautions against imposing further hardship on persons who have already endured prolonged custody without a legally sound conviction.

In addition to the primary relief, the petition may ask the High Court to direct the prosecution to file a fresh charge sheet, if any, that accurately delineates the role of each accused, or to dismiss the proceedings altogether if the evidence is insufficient. This dual approach ensures that the accused are not left in legal limbo and that the criminal justice system upholds the standards of fair notice and reliable evidence.

Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court often encounter similar procedural challenges, and their experience underscores the importance of invoking the High Court’s inherent powers at the earliest stage possible. By filing a revision petition, the accused can pre‑empt a protracted appeal process that would otherwise reaffirm a conviction founded on a defective charge. The strategic advantage of a revision lies in its ability to scrutinise the legality of the original order rather than merely re‑evaluating the factual matrix.

Ultimately, the remedy of a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court offers a comprehensive solution that addresses both the procedural defect in the charge and the unreliability of the identification evidence. It provides a legal avenue to overturn a conviction that fails to meet the standards of notice and proof required under criminal law, thereby safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair trial and preventing an unjust continuation of imprisonment.

Question: Does the charge framed by the Sessions Court provide the accused with sufficient notice of the specific acts alleged, and what legal consequences arise if it is found to be defective?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the FIR merely described “the three persons who were seen fleeing the scene” without naming any individual, and the charge sheet echoed this vagueness by stating that the accused were “part of the gang” without delineating their precise participation. Under criminal procedural law, a charge must disclose the nature of the offence and the particular conduct attributed to each accused so that they can prepare a defence. The absence of such specificity deprives the accused of the right to know exactly what they are alleged to have done, violating the principle of fair notice. In the present case, the charge fails to indicate whether the three neighbours were principals, abettors, or merely present, leaving the accused unable to challenge the elements of the offence of dacoity. The legal consequence of a defective charge is that the conviction may be set aside on the ground of jurisdictional error, because the court cannot lawfully convict on an ill‑framed accusation. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers, can quash the conviction, order a fresh charge sheet if the prosecution wishes to proceed, or dismiss the proceedings altogether. For the accused, this defect opens a pathway to immediate relief, as the conviction rests on a procedural flaw that cannot be cured by a mere appeal on the merits. The prosecution, on the other hand, must either amend the FIR to reflect a precise allegation or accept that the case cannot proceed. The investigating agency may be directed to re‑examine the evidence and file a proper charge if any. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the defect strikes at the heart of due process, and that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is the appropriate forum to correct the error, rather than a routine appellate review of evidence. The court’s intervention would restore the balance between state power and individual liberty, ensuring that no person is punished on an ambiguous accusation.

Question: How reliable is the identification evidence based on a distinctive scar and testimony of the complainant’s relatives, and what impact does its credibility have on the conviction?

Answer: The identification evidence in this case rests on the claim that the accused were recognized by a scar on the forearm, as recounted by family members of the complainant who have a documented commercial rivalry with the accused neighbours. Reliability of identification hinges on two pillars: the impartiality of the witness and the clarity of the distinguishing feature. Here, the witnesses are not neutral observers; their vested interest creates a strong presumption of bias, which the courts treat as a serious impediment to admissibility. Moreover, a scar, while distinctive, may not be uniquely identifiable without corroborative evidence such as photographs or medical records. The prosecution’s reliance solely on oral testimony, without independent verification, fails the test of credibility. In criminal jurisprudence, doubtful identification cannot satisfy the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the charge itself is vague. The impact of this unreliability is profound: a conviction predicated on such evidence is vulnerable to being set aside for lack of substantive proof. The accused can argue that the identification is tainted, and that the trial court erred in accepting it without proper scrutiny. The High Court, upon review, may find that the evidential infirmities, coupled with the defective charge, render the conviction unsustainable. Practically, this means the accused could be released, and the prosecution may be barred from re‑prosecuting on the same facts unless fresh, reliable evidence emerges. For the complainant, the failure of identification underscores the need for objective investigative methods. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasize the doctrine that conviction cannot rest on suspect testimony, and would seek quashing of the judgment on the ground that the evidence does not meet the stringent standard required for a serious offence such as dacoity.

Question: What is the most appropriate procedural remedy for the accused to challenge both the defective charge and the questionable identification, and why is a revision petition preferred over a regular appeal?

Answer: The procedural landscape offers two principal avenues: a regular appeal on the merits of the conviction, and a revision petition invoking the inherent powers of the High Court. An appeal presupposes that the charge is legally sound and focuses on re‑evaluating the evidence. In the present scenario, the charge itself is infirm, and the identification evidence is fundamentally unreliable. Consequently, an appeal would not address the core defect that deprived the accused of proper notice and a fair trial. A revision petition, however, is designed to correct jurisdictional errors, including improper framing of charges and reliance on tainted evidence. The High Court, through its supervisory jurisdiction, can examine whether the subordinate court committed a legal error that affected the validity of the conviction. By filing a revision, the accused can seek quashing of the conviction, annulment of the sentence, and immediate release, without the need to re‑argue the factual matrix. Moreover, a revision can be entertained even after the appeal period has lapsed, providing a timely remedy when the conviction is manifestly flawed. The practical advantage lies in the High Court’s ability to order the prosecution to amend the FIR or close the case if the evidence does not support the offence. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would craft the petition to highlight the dual defects, cite precedents where similar procedural lapses led to quashing, and request that the court exercise its inherent powers to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This route not only addresses the legal infirmities but also safeguards the accused from further incarceration while the matter is being rectified.

Question: How does the principle of the interest of justice influence the High Court’s decision on whether to order a fresh trial or to set aside the conviction outright?

Answer: The interest of justice test balances the rights of the accused against the societal interest in prosecuting crime. In this case, the accused have already served a substantial portion of the seven‑year sentence, and the conviction rests on a defective charge and unreliable identification. Ordering a fresh trial would subject the accused to further hardship, extending the period of deprivation of liberty without any guarantee of a different outcome, especially when the evidential foundation is weak. The courts have consistently held that when the defect is fatal to the conviction, and the accused have endured significant custodial hardship, the more equitable remedy is to set aside the conviction rather than to mandate a retrial. This approach prevents the state from perpetuating injustice through procedural loopholes. Moreover, the principle of proportionality dictates that the punishment must correspond to the proven offence; here, the evidence may at most support a lesser offence such as robbery, not dacoity. The High Court, therefore, is likely to consider that the cumulative effect of the procedural defect, the unreliable identification, and the extensive time already served outweighs any public interest in pursuing a new trial. By quashing the conviction, the court upholds the rule of law, ensures that the accused are not subjected to punitive measures without proper legal foundation, and signals to the investigating agency the necessity of rigorous adherence to procedural safeguards. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the interest of justice compels the court to dismiss the conviction outright, thereby avoiding an oppressive retrial and restoring the accused’s liberty.

Question: What are the immediate and long‑term implications for the accused, the complainant, and the investigating agency if the revision petition succeeds in quashing the conviction?

Answer: Should the revision petition be granted, the immediate effect is the release of the three accused from custody, as the conviction and sentence would be nullified. This restores their personal liberty, clears their criminal record, and allows them to resume their livelihoods, which is especially significant given the socio‑economic impact of prolonged detention. For the complainant, the quashing of the conviction may be a setback, but it also underscores the necessity of presenting credible, unbiased evidence. The complainant may be encouraged to cooperate with the investigating agency to file a fresh, properly documented FIR if new, reliable evidence emerges, or to accept that the case may not proceed further. The investigating agency faces a procedural audit; it may be directed to amend the FIR to accurately reflect the alleged participants or to close the investigation if the evidence does not substantiate a dacoity charge. In the long term, the agency is likely to adopt stricter standards for identification procedures, ensuring that witnesses are impartial and that distinguishing features are corroborated by forensic or documentary proof. The case also sets a precedent for future prosecutions, reinforcing the requirement that charges be precise and that identification evidence be robust. For the legal community, especially lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, the decision serves as a reminder of the High Court’s willingness to intervene where procedural fairness is compromised. It may lead to increased vigilance among prosecutors and investigators, reducing the risk of wrongful convictions. Ultimately, the quashing of the conviction aligns with the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, deters abuse of the criminal process, and promotes confidence in the justice system.

Question: When can a revision petition be filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to challenge a defective charge and unreliable identification in the present case?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the trial court convicted the three neighbours on the basis of a charge that merely states that the accused were part of a gang without specifying their individual role, and on identification testimony that is tainted by familial bias. Under the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court a revision petition may be entertained whenever a subordinate court commits a jurisdictional error that affects the validity of its order. In this scenario the error is twofold: first the charge fails to give the accused proper notice of the case they must meet, and second the reliance on identification that is not independent raises a serious doubt about the reliability of the evidence. Because the conviction rests on these defects, the High Court can be approached to examine whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. The procedural route begins with drafting a petition that sets out the factual background, points out the inadequacy of the charge, and highlights the bias in the identification process. The petition must be filed within the period prescribed for revision, which is generally a short window after the judgment is pronounced, and must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment, the charge sheet, and the evidence record. The petitioner must also attach an affidavit stating that the accused are still in custody or have served a substantial portion of the sentence, thereby establishing the urgency of relief. Once the petition is filed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court will issue notice to the prosecution and may direct the trial court to produce the record for scrutiny. The court may then either set aside the conviction, remit the matter for fresh framing of a proper charge, or direct a re‑examination of the identification evidence. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who is familiar with revision practice is essential because the petition must be crafted to satisfy the High Court’s standards of specificity and must anticipate the arguments that the prosecution will raise in defence of the original judgment. The remedy lies before the High Court precisely because the defect is procedural rather than factual, and only a superior court can correct a flaw that undermines the very foundation of the conviction.

Question: What procedural steps must the accused follow to obtain bail or release while the revision petition is pending, and why is a factual defence insufficient?

Answer: The accused remains in custody after the conviction and the trial court has imposed a rigorous imprisonment term. Because the conviction is being challenged on a procedural ground, the accused cannot rely solely on a factual defence that the identification is mistaken. The law requires that the accused demonstrate that the legal basis of the conviction is unsound. The first step is to file an application for interim bail before the Sessions Court or the High Court, invoking the pending revision petition as a ground for release. The application must set out that the charge is defective, that the identification evidence is unreliable, and that the accused has already served a considerable portion of the sentence. The court will consider whether the accused is likely to flee, whether the allegations are serious, and whether the pending revision raises a substantial question of law. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court may be consulted to draft the bail application because the High Court has the power to grant interim relief in revision matters. The application must be supported by an affidavit, the copy of the revision petition, and any medical or personal circumstances that favour release. The factual defence alone is insufficient because the conviction rests on a charge that does not meet the requirement of clear notice; without correcting that defect the accused cannot meaningfully contest the evidence. Moreover, the identification testimony is not a matter of fact that can be disproved without a proper charge, and the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction supersedes the factual matrix at this stage. If the bail application is rejected, the accused may move a second application for suspension of the sentence, again relying on the pending revision. The procedural route emphasizes that the remedy is not a re‑evaluation of the evidence but a correction of the legal infirmity, and therefore the accused must pursue the procedural channels rather than merely contest the factual narrative presented at trial.

Question: How does the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court extend to supervising the trial court’s conviction, and why should the accused engage a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court for this purpose?

Answer: The High Court possesses inherent powers to supervise subordinate courts to ensure that justice is administered in accordance with law. In the present case the trial court’s conviction is based on a charge that does not specify the precise acts of each accused and on identification evidence that is compromised by bias. These are jurisdictional defects that the High Court can examine through a revision petition. The supervisory jurisdiction allows the High Court to set aside an order that is illegal, arbitrary, or made without jurisdiction. Because the defect concerns the very formation of the charge, the High Court can intervene without waiting for an appeal on the merits. The procedural route requires the accused to file a petition that outlines the factual background, points out the inadequacy of the charge, and demonstrates the unreliability of the identification. The petition must be filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the court will issue notice to the prosecution and may direct the trial court to produce the complete record. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is essential because the practitioner must be adept at framing the legal arguments that invoke the High Court’s supervisory powers, must know the procedural requirements for filing a revision, and must be able to anticipate the objections that the prosecution will raise. The lawyer will also advise on the timing of the petition, the need for supporting affidavits, and the strategy for seeking interim relief such as bail or suspension of the sentence. Without a specialist counsel, the accused may fail to meet the strict procedural thresholds, resulting in dismissal of the petition and continuation of the conviction. Thus the jurisdiction of the High Court is the appropriate forum to correct the procedural defect, and engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is presented in a form that maximises the chance of successful intervention.

Question: Why might the accused consider approaching lawyers in Chandigarh High Court for ancillary relief such as a direction to amend the FIR or to order a fresh charge sheet, and what is the procedural route for such relief?

Answer: The accused may seek ancillary relief because the FIR that initiated the proceedings lists the accused only as “the three persons who were seen fleeing the scene” and does not name any individual. This lack of specificity contributes to the defective charge and undermines the fairness of the trial. A direction from the High Court to amend the FIR or to order a fresh charge sheet can address the root cause of the procedural flaw. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court are well placed to file a writ petition, such as a writ of certiorious, challenging the legality of the FIR and the charge sheet on the ground that they do not disclose the specific acts of each accused. The procedural route begins with drafting a petition that sets out the factual matrix, highlights the vague description in the FIR, and explains how the defect has led to an unjust conviction. The petition is filed in the Chandigarh High Court, which has jurisdiction over the district where the FIR was lodged. The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the FIR, the charge sheet, the conviction order, and an affidavit stating the current custodial status of the accused. The court will issue notice to the investigating agency and may direct it to either amend the FIR to reflect the precise allegations or to close the case if the evidence does not support a dacoity charge. If the court orders a fresh charge sheet, the prosecution must file a new charge that specifies the role of each accused, thereby giving them proper notice. Throughout this process the accused should retain a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who can argue that the procedural defect is fatal and that without correction the conviction cannot stand. This ancillary relief complements the revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and provides a comprehensive strategy to overturn the conviction and secure the release of the accused.

Question: How does the defect in the charge – namely the failure to specify each accused’s precise participation in the alleged dacoity – affect the accused’s right to bail and the viability of a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The defect in the charge strikes at the core of the accused’s right to a fair defence because it deprives him of clear notice of the case he must meet. In the present facts the charge sheet merely states that “the accused were part of the gang” without indicating whether they were principals, abettors, or merely present. This vagueness prevents the accused from preparing a focused defence, undermining the principle that an accused must know the exact nature of the allegations. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will first examine whether the trial court erred in refusing bail on the ground that the charge was insufficiently specific. The High Court’s inherent powers allow it to intervene when a lower court commits a jurisdictional error, and a defective charge is a classic ground for such intervention. The revision petition can therefore argue that the conviction is unsustainable because the charge failed to satisfy the requirement of clear notice, rendering the entire proceeding void ab initio. Moreover, the accused has already served a substantial portion of the term, intensifying the urgency for relief. The petition should request that the High Court set aside the conviction, order immediate release, and direct the investigating agency to either amend the FIR to reflect a proper charge or dismiss the case if the evidence does not support a dacoity allegation. By highlighting the procedural defect, the petition seeks to invoke the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, which can quash the conviction without the need to re‑examine the evidential record in depth. The strategic advantage of a revision lies in its focus on legality rather than factual guilt, offering a quicker route to relief for an accused who remains in custody and whose right to a fair trial has been compromised.

Question: What avenues are available to challenge the reliability of the identification testimony that hinges on a distinctive scar, given the complainant’s family’s commercial rivalry with the accused?

Answer: The identification testimony rests on a single physical characteristic – a scar on the forearm – reported by relatives of the complainant who have a documented commercial rivalry with the accused. This creates a strong inference of bias, which a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would exploit to undermine the credibility of the witnesses. The first step is to obtain the original statements recorded by the police, the diary of the investigation, and any contemporaneous notes that may reveal inconsistencies or pressure on the witnesses. Cross‑examination can then focus on the motive to fabricate, the lack of independent corroboration, and the possibility of mistaken perception under stressful circumstances. Additionally, the defence can request a forensic re‑examination of the scar, if any photographic evidence exists, to verify whether the accused indeed bears the described mark. If the scar is absent or differs in size or location, the identification collapses. The defence may also invoke the principle that identification must be based on reliable, untainted testimony, and that the presence of a hostile relationship between witnesses and the accused defeats the presumption of reliability. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the prosecution’s reliance on such compromised testimony violates the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the conviction cannot stand on this shaky foundation. The strategic move is to file a petition for quashing the conviction on the ground of unreliable identification, supported by affidavits from neutral medical experts and any independent eyewitnesses who can attest to the absence of the scar. By demonstrating that the identification is tainted, the defence seeks to compel the High Court to set aside the conviction or at least order a retrial where the prosecution must present fresh, credible evidence.

Question: Which documentary materials should the defence procure from the investigating agency, and how should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court scrutinise these documents to build a robust revision or bail application?

Answer: The defence must secure a complete set of the FIR, the charge‑sheet, the police diary, the statements of all witnesses, the forensic reports, and any material evidence such as the recovered jewellery and cash. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will begin by filing a formal application under the relevant procedural law to compel the investigating agency to produce these documents, citing the accused’s right to a fair trial and the necessity of examining the basis of the charge. Once obtained, the documents should be examined for inconsistencies: for example, whether the FIR mentions the scar, whether the charge‑sheet accurately reflects the FIR’s allegations, and whether the police diary records any deviation from standard investigative practice, such as failure to record alternative suspects. The defence should also compare the statements recorded at the time of arrest with those presented at trial to detect any alterations or omissions. Any gaps or contradictions can be highlighted in the revision petition to demonstrate procedural irregularities. Moreover, the forensic report should be inspected for chain‑of‑custody lapses, which could undermine the evidentiary value of the recovered articles. The defence may also request the production of the original audio‑visual recordings of the identification process, if any, to assess whether the procedure complied with established norms. By meticulously analysing these documents, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can craft arguments that the investigation was flawed, the charge was improperly framed, and the evidence is unreliable, thereby strengthening the case for bail or for quashing the conviction through a revision petition. This documentary audit forms the factual backbone of any High Court filing and signals to the court that the prosecution’s case is built on shaky procedural foundations.

Question: Considering the accused’s prolonged custody and the procedural defects identified, what is the optimal strategic choice between filing a revision petition, pursuing an appeal on the merits, or seeking an immediate bail order?

Answer: The strategic calculus must weigh the speed of relief, the likelihood of success, and the procedural posture of the case. An appeal on the merits would require the accused to accept the validity of the charge while contesting the evidential record, a route that is less attractive when the charge itself is defective. Moreover, an appeal entails a longer timeline, during which the accused remains incarcerated, exacerbating the hardship already endured. By contrast, a revision petition directly attacks the legality of the conviction on the ground of a defective charge and unreliable identification, allowing the Punjab and Haryana High Court to set aside the conviction without re‑examining the factual matrix in depth. This avenue is particularly potent because the High Court’s inherent powers can be invoked when a lower court commits a jurisdictional error, which is evident here. Simultaneously, the defence can file an urgent bail application, citing the defect in the charge, the tainted identification, and the excessive period of custody already served. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that continued detention is oppressive and contrary to the interest‑of‑justice test, especially when the conviction rests on procedural infirmities. The bail application can be presented as an interim measure pending the outcome of the revision petition, ensuring the accused’s liberty while the higher court deliberates. In practice, the optimal strategy is a combined approach: file a revision petition to attack the conviction’s foundation, and concurrently move for bail on the basis of procedural defects and the principle of liberty pending final resolution. This dual track maximises the chances of immediate release and, if the revision succeeds, results in the ultimate quashing of the conviction, thereby delivering comprehensive relief to the accused.