Can a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenge the admissibility of a dying declaration authenticated with a post mortem thumb impression?

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

Suppose a person is found gravely injured in a public park and, before losing consciousness, points to a nearby individual and declares that the accused inflicted the wounds, then, after the victim’s death, the police obtain a thumb‑impression on the written statement to complete the record; the accused is immediately taken into custody, the weapon is recovered nearby, and the investigation proceeds on the basis of that dying declaration.

The investigating agency files an FIR that describes the incident, the victim’s identification of the accused, and the recovery of a blood‑stained knife that matches the weapon described by the victim. The accused, who surrendered voluntarily within minutes of the incident, sustains a superficial injury to the same finger that bears the thumb‑impression. The prosecution relies heavily on the written statement, the recovered knife, and the accused’s finger injury to argue that the evidence establishes the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

At trial, the court admits the dying declaration as a substantive piece of evidence, finding it categoric and complete because the victim had no further matter to add before death. The trial judge also accepts the post‑mortem thumb‑impression as a legitimate method of authentication, noting the absence of any evident impropriety on the part of the officer who took it. Consequently, the accused is convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The convicted individual challenges the judgment on the ground that the dying declaration should be excluded. The defence contends that a statement completed after the declarant’s death, even with a thumb‑impression, is vulnerable to tampering and therefore fails the statutory requirement of completeness and voluntariness. Moreover, the defence argues that the trial court erred in treating the thumb‑impression as a neutral authentication, ignoring the possibility of coercion or fabrication after death. The factual defence that the accused was present at the scene and that the weapon was recovered does not address the core evidentiary defect alleged – the admissibility of the dying declaration itself.

Because the conviction rests primarily on that contested piece of evidence, a simple appeal on the merits would not suffice; the legal error concerns the trial court’s interpretation of the law of dying declarations, a question of law that can be examined by a higher court without re‑trying the facts. The appropriate procedural route, therefore, is to seek a revision of the lower court’s order on the basis that it committed a manifest error of law in admitting the statement. A revision petition allows the higher judiciary to scrutinise whether the trial court correctly applied the principles governing dying declarations and the admissibility of post‑mortem thumb‑impressions.

A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court prepares a revision petition that specifically asks the court to quash the conviction and to direct a fresh trial, emphasizing that the trial court’s acceptance of the thumb‑impression violates established jurisprudence on the reliability of dying declarations. The petition cites precedents that require a dying declaration to be complete at the time of recording and warns that any addition, even a thumb‑impression, after death introduces a reasonable doubt about its authenticity.

The accused also consults lawyers in Chandigarh High Court to explore parallel remedies, such as a writ of habeas corpus, should the conviction lead to unlawful detention pending the revision. These lawyers advise that while a habeas corpus petition may address custodial legality, the substantive issue of evidentiary admissibility is best tackled through a revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which possesses the jurisdiction to entertain such questions of law under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court further argue that the High Court has the power to examine the record for any procedural irregularity, including the manner in which the thumb‑impression was obtained. They submit that the revision petition is not a mere appeal against the conviction but a challenge to the legal correctness of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, a ground that the High Court can entertain suo motu or upon the petitioner's application.

In sum, the factual defence alone cannot overturn a conviction that hinges on a disputed dying declaration; the remedy lies in filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By invoking the court’s supervisory jurisdiction, the accused seeks a judicial determination that the trial court erred in admitting the statement, thereby opening the door to quashing the conviction or ordering a retrial. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court stand ready to assist with any ancillary relief, ensuring that the procedural strategy remains focused on correcting the legal error at the highest appropriate level.

Question: Can the thumb‑impression taken after the victim’s death be regarded as a reliable method of authenticating the dying declaration, or does its post‑mortem nature render the document vulnerable to tampering and therefore inadmissible?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the victim, while gravely injured in the park, identified the accused and verbally accused him before losing consciousness. After the victim died, the police officer affixed a thumb‑impression to the written statement to complete the record. The prosecution relies on this document as the cornerstone of its case, arguing that the impression merely serves as a signature confirming the victim’s authorship. The legal issue centers on whether a post‑mortem thumb‑impression satisfies the evidentiary requirement of authentication without breaching the principle of voluntariness. Under established jurisprudence, an authentication must be free from coercion and must reflect the declarant’s intention to endorse the statement. A thumb‑impression taken after death raises a presumption of possible manipulation because the declarant cannot consent at that moment. The court must therefore examine the circumstances: whether the officer acted impartially, whether any witnesses observed the impression being taken, and whether the impression matches the victim’s known biometric pattern. If the investigating agency fails to produce corroborative evidence of the impression’s integrity, the High Court may deem the authentication defective. Procedurally, the accused can raise this defect in a revision petition, seeking quashing of the conviction on the ground of manifest error of law. The practical implication for the accused is significant: if the High Court accepts that the thumb‑impression is unreliable, the primary evidence collapses, likely leading to reversal of the conviction or ordering of a retrial. Conversely, if the court finds the impression admissible, the conviction stands. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would stress the necessity of a meticulous forensic comparison of the impression with the victim’s known prints, while a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that any doubt about authenticity must be resolved in favour of the accused, given the severe penalty of life imprisonment.

Question: Does the fact that the dying declaration was completed after the victim’s death, with only a thumb‑impression added, satisfy the legal requirements of completeness and voluntariness for a dying declaration to be admissible?

Answer: The core factual scenario involves a victim who, before dying, verbally identified the accused and then, after death, a thumb‑impression was affixed to the written statement. The legal doctrine governing dying declarations mandates that the statement be made voluntarily, relate to the cause of death, and be complete in the sense that the declarant had no further matter to add. Completeness is assessed by examining whether the declarant, at the moment of speaking, indicated that he had finished his account. In this case, the victim’s verbal identification was followed by a loss of consciousness, suggesting an abrupt cessation. However, the addition of a thumb‑impression post‑mortem raises the question of whether the declarant’s intention to finalize the statement persisted after death, a condition that cannot be ascertained. The prosecution argues that the impression merely authenticates the earlier verbal statement, while the defence contends that any post‑mortem addition violates the voluntariness requirement because the victim could not consent. The procedural consequence is that the accused can challenge the admissibility of the declaration in a revision petition, asserting that the trial court erred in treating the post‑mortem impression as a neutral authentication. If the High Court agrees, it must exclude the declaration, which would deprive the prosecution of its keystone evidence. Practically, the exclusion would likely result in the quashing of the conviction or a directive for a fresh trial, as the remaining evidence—weapon recovery and the accused’s injury—may be insufficient to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasize that the principle of voluntariness cannot be stretched to include a post‑mortem act, whereas a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would focus on the need for a strict adherence to the doctrinal requirements to safeguard the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Question: Why is a revision petition the appropriate procedural remedy to challenge the trial court’s admission of the dying declaration, rather than a regular appeal on the merits?

Answer: The procedural backdrop shows that the accused was convicted on the basis of a dying declaration whose admissibility is contested. The legal issue is whether the trial court committed a manifest error of law in admitting the statement, a question that does not require re‑examination of factual findings but rather a pure point of law. Under the constitutional scheme, a revision petition is the correct vehicle when a lower court’s order is alleged to be illegal, erroneous, or made without jurisdiction, especially concerning evidentiary rulings. An ordinary appeal on the merits would involve a re‑appraisal of the entire evidence, which is unnecessary when the crux of the dispute is the legal correctness of the evidentiary rule applied. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can scrutinize whether the trial court correctly interpreted the law on dying declarations and the admissibility of post‑mortem thumb‑impressions. Procedurally, the accused must file the revision petition within the prescribed period, presenting the alleged legal error and seeking quashing of the conviction or ordering a retrial. The practical implication for the accused is that a successful revision can lead to immediate relief, potentially releasing the accused from custody pending further proceedings. Moreover, a revision avoids the time‑consuming process of a full appeal, focusing the High Court’s attention on the specific legal defect. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise that the revision petition is the most efficient route to address the evidentiary flaw, while a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would caution that any delay in filing could forfeit the remedy, emphasizing the urgency of protecting the accused’s liberty.

Question: If the High Court determines that the dying declaration is inadmissible, what are the likely consequences for the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused?

Answer: The factual record indicates that the conviction for murder rests heavily on the dying declaration, supplemented by the recovered knife and the accused’s finger injury. Should the High Court find that the declaration fails the legal test of completeness and voluntariness, the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution collapses. In criminal jurisprudence, when the principal piece of evidence is excluded, the remaining material must be examined to see if it can independently satisfy the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this scenario, the weapon recovery and the accused’s injury, while suggestive, may not alone establish the requisite mens rea and actus reus for murder. Consequently, the High Court is likely to quash the conviction and either order an acquittal or direct a fresh trial to allow the prosecution to present a case without the inadmissible declaration. The practical effect on the sentence is immediate: the life imprisonment order would be set aside, and the accused would be released from custody, subject to any conditions imposed by the court. Additionally, the prosecution may consider filing a fresh FIR if new evidence emerges, but the High Court’s decision would underscore the necessity of adhering to strict evidentiary standards. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would highlight that the exclusion of the dying declaration removes the prosecution’s core proof, making the conviction untenable, while a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise the accused to seek restitution for the period of unlawful detention and to prepare for possible re‑investigation, emphasizing the importance of a clean record for future legal proceedings.

Question: Can a writ of habeas corpus be filed in parallel with the revision petition to challenge the accused’s continued detention, and what are the strategic advantages of pursuing both remedies?

Answer: The factual context shows that the accused remains in custody following a life sentence, while the legal battle over the admissibility of the dying declaration proceeds through a revision petition. A writ of habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy designed to address unlawful detention, focusing on the legality of the custodial order rather than the merits of the conviction. The strategic advantage of filing a habeas corpus petition alongside the revision lies in its ability to secure immediate relief if the court finds that the detention is not justified pending the resolution of the evidentiary issue. While the revision petition challenges the legal correctness of the trial court’s evidential ruling, the habeas corpus petition can compel the detaining authority to justify the continued incarceration, potentially leading to temporary release. However, the court may decline to interfere with the conviction itself, reserving that question for the revision. Practically, pursuing both remedies ensures that the accused’s liberty is protected on two fronts: the revision seeks to overturn the conviction, and the habeas corpus addresses any procedural defect in the detention order, such as failure to provide a copy of the judgment or denial of the right to legal counsel. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the habeas corpus petition should be framed narrowly to avoid duplication of issues, while a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would stress that simultaneous filing maximizes the chances of swift relief, especially if the High Court is inclined to grant interim bail pending the outcome of the revision. The combined approach also signals to the judiciary the seriousness of the alleged legal error and the urgency of protecting the accused’s fundamental rights.

Question: Why does the appropriate procedural remedy for challenging the admission of the dying declaration lie in a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than a regular appeal on the merits?

Answer: The conviction rests almost entirely on the evidential ruling that the dying declaration, completed with a thumb‑impression after the victim’s death, is admissible. That ruling is a question of law because it interprets the principles governing dying declarations and the validity of post‑mortem authentication. A regular appeal would require the appellate court to re‑examine the factual matrix and the credibility of witnesses, which is not the core issue. The higher court’s supervisory jurisdiction under the Constitution allows it to examine whether the lower court committed a manifest error of law. A revision petition is the statutory vehicle designed for such supervisory review. It enables the Punjab and Haryana High Court to scrutinise the record, to consider the legal standards applied, and to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting the statement. The petition does not seek a re‑trial of the facts but asks the High Court to declare the evidential ruling ultra vires. This focus aligns with the principle that a question of law can be decided without a full rehearing of the case. Moreover, the High Court has the power to quash the conviction, to direct a fresh trial, or to issue any appropriate writ. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is drafted with precise reference to the legal precedents on dying declarations, that the correct annexures of the trial record are attached, and that the arguments are framed to highlight the manifest error. The lawyer can also advise on the timing of filing, the service of notice to the prosecution, and the preservation of the record for judicial scrutiny. In sum, the procedural route through revision leverages the High Court’s authority to correct legal misinterpretation without reopening the factual dispute, making it the most efficient and legally sound avenue for the accused.

Question: How does the post‑mortem thumb‑impression on the dying declaration affect the need for High Court intervention and why cannot a purely factual defence overturn the conviction?

Answer: The thumb‑impression was affixed after the declarant had expired, raising a serious question about the completeness and voluntariness of the statement. The law requires that a dying declaration be made when the declarant is aware of the impending death and that it be complete at the time of recording. By taking the impression after death, the investigating officer introduced a possibility of tampering, which is a legal defect rather than a factual dispute. The trial court’s decision to admit the statement therefore hinges on its interpretation of the legal standards, not on the weight of the evidence. A factual defence that the accused was present at the scene or that the weapon was recovered does not address the admissibility of the core piece of evidence. The accused can argue that the thumb‑impression undermines the reliability of the declaration, but that argument must be evaluated by a court competent to interpret the law. Only the Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can examine whether the trial judge erred in treating the post‑mortem impression as a neutral authentication. The High Court can also consider whether the procedural safeguards required for such authentication were observed. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can be consulted to explore ancillary relief such as a writ of habeas corpus if the accused remains in custody pending the revision, but the primary challenge to the conviction must be framed as a legal error. The factual defence alone cannot overturn the conviction because the conviction is predicated on the legal acceptance of the statement, and the accused must obtain a declaration that the High Court has misapplied the law. This underscores why the procedural remedy must target the legal flaw rather than re‑argue the factual matrix.

Question: What are the procedural steps that the accused must follow to file a revision petition, and why is the assistance of a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court essential for each step?

Answer: The first step is to obtain a certified copy of the judgment and the complete trial record, including the FIR, the dying declaration, and the thumb‑impression document. The accused must then prepare a petition that sets out the specific legal error, namely the admission of a post‑mortem thumb‑impression as a valid dying declaration. The petition must be filed within the period prescribed for revision, typically thirty days from the receipt of the judgment, although the court may extend the time on sufficient cause. The next step is to serve a notice of the petition on the prosecution and the investigating agency, ensuring that they have an opportunity to respond. The petition must be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the accused has not concealed any material fact and that the record is complete. After filing, the High Court may issue a notice to the lower court to produce the original documents for inspection. Throughout this process, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is indispensable. The lawyer knows the exact format required for the petition, can draft precise grounds of revision, and can cite the relevant jurisprudence on dying declarations and post‑mortem authentication. The lawyer also ensures that the annexures are correctly indexed, that the service of notice complies with procedural rules, and that any objections raised by the prosecution are addressed promptly. Moreover, the lawyer can argue for interim relief, such as bail, if the accused is in custody, by linking the legal error to the risk of continued detention. Finally, the lawyer will be present at the hearing to present oral arguments, to respond to any queries from the bench, and to file any follow‑up applications. Without professional guidance, the accused risks procedural defaults that could lead to dismissal of the petition, thereby forfeiting the chance to have the conviction examined on its legal merits.

Question: In what circumstances might a writ of habeas corpus be pursued alongside the revision petition, and why does the primary focus remain on the revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: A writ of habeas corpus may be appropriate if the accused is detained and claims that the custody is unlawful because the conviction rests on a defective piece of evidence. The writ challenges the legality of the detention itself, not the merits of the conviction. If the revision petition is pending and the accused remains in prison, the lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can file a habeas corpus petition to obtain interim relief, arguing that the continued incarceration is untenable until the High Court decides on the legal error. However, the writ does not address the core issue of whether the dying declaration was admissible. The primary remedy must be the revision because it directly attacks the legal basis of the conviction. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can quash the conviction, order a fresh trial, or direct that the evidence be excluded. Only after such a decision can the habeas corpus petition be definitively resolved, either by ordering release if the conviction is set aside or by maintaining custody if the conviction stands. Pursuing both remedies simultaneously ensures that the accused’s liberty is protected during the pendency of the legal challenge, but the strategic emphasis remains on the revision. The lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can coordinate with the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to align arguments, ensuring that the habeas corpus petition references the pending revision and avoids duplicative litigation. This coordinated approach maximises the chance of securing temporary relief while keeping the focus on correcting the legal error that underpins the conviction.

Question: What are the evidentiary risks associated with admitting a dying declaration that was completed with a post‑mortem thumb‑impression, and how can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court assess those risks for a revision petition?

Answer: The core risk lies in the possibility that the thumb‑impression, taken after the declarant’s death, may be perceived as a post‑hoc authentication that undermines the statutory requirement of completeness and voluntariness. In the factual matrix, the victim identified the accused while on the brink of death and subsequently became unconscious; the police officer then affixed the thumb‑impression to the written statement. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must first examine the original police blotter, the medical certificate confirming the time of death, and any contemporaneous notes that indicate whether the victim was still capable of making a conscious imprint. The presence of a superficial injury on the accused’s finger, matching the victim’s description, does not automatically validate the impression; rather, it raises the question of whether the officer had any motive to fabricate or alter the document. The revision petition should therefore focus on establishing a procedural defect: that the thumb‑impression was not taken in the presence of an independent witness, that there is no contemporaneous audio‑visual record, and that the officer’s report lacks a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the impression. Moreover, the lawyer must highlight jurisprudential precedents that treat any post‑mortem authentication with suspicion, emphasizing that the High Court has the supervisory power to scrutinise whether the trial court erred in treating the impression as a neutral device. By framing the issue as a manifest error of law, the counsel can argue that the admission of the statement violates the principle that a dying declaration must be complete at the moment of recording, and any subsequent addition, even a thumb‑mark, introduces a reasonable doubt about its reliability. The revision petition should therefore request quashing of the conviction on the ground that the evidentiary foundation is tainted, and that a fresh trial is necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, consulted on parallel matters, would concur that the evidentiary risk is sufficient to merit judicial intervention at the supervisory level.

Question: Which documentary and forensic records should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court scrutinize to establish procedural irregularities in the taking of the thumb‑impression and the recovery of the weapon?

Answer: To build a robust challenge, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court must conduct a meticulous audit of every piece of documentation that formed the evidentiary backbone of the trial. The first document is the FIR, which should be examined for the exact wording used to describe the victim’s identification and the officer’s note on the thumb‑impression. The police diary entry that records the time, place, and personnel present when the impression was taken is crucial; any omission of a witness or lack of a contemporaneous note raises suspicion of procedural lapse. The forensic report on the recovered knife must be cross‑checked with the autopsy findings to verify the blood‑type match and to confirm that the weapon’s dimensions correspond to the description given by the victim. Additionally, the post‑mortem report should be inspected for the exact interval between death and the thumb‑impression, as a significant gap could indicate that the victim was already deceased when the impression was affixed. The chain‑of‑custody log for the weapon and the statement must be traced from the scene to the police station, ensuring that no unauthorized handling occurred. Photographs of the crime scene, the weapon, and the thumb‑impression on the statement are also vital; any alteration or absence of such visual records can be highlighted as a breach of standard investigative protocol. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, advising on the revision, would stress that the absence of an independent witness to the impression and the lack of a contemporaneous audio‑visual record constitute a procedural defect that can vitiate the admissibility of the statement. By presenting these documentary gaps, the counsel can argue that the trial court failed to consider material irregularities, thereby committing a manifest error of law. The strategic aim is to persuade the High Court that the procedural infirmities are so fundamental that they undermine the entire evidentiary edifice, justifying quashing of the conviction and ordering a fresh trial.

Question: How does the accused’s brief custody and surrender affect arguments on voluntariness of the statement and potential coercion, and what strategic points should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court raise regarding custodial rights?

Answer: The accused’s immediate surrender and the superficial injury to his finger create a factual backdrop that can be leveraged to question the voluntariness of the dying declaration. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must argue that the proximity of the accused to the victim at the time of the statement raises the spectre of intimidation, especially if the police officer who recorded the statement was also present during the surrender. The brief period of custody, however, does not automatically imply coercion; nevertheless, the counsel should request the production of the custody log, the medical examination report of the accused at the time of arrest, and any statements made by the accused during that interval. If the log shows that the accused was interrogated without legal counsel, this could be portrayed as a violation of his right to legal assistance, thereby casting doubt on the voluntariness of any subsequent identification. Moreover, the lawyer should highlight that the thumb‑impression was taken after the victim’s death, at a time when the accused was already in police custody, creating a potential motive for the officer to secure a decisive piece of evidence. The strategic point is to demonstrate that the procedural safeguards designed to protect the accused’s rights were not observed, rendering the statement vulnerable to claims of fabrication or undue influence. By filing a revision petition that emphasizes these custodial irregularities, the counsel can ask the High Court to scrutinise whether the trial court erred in overlooking the possibility of coercion. Additionally, the lawyer may seek a direction for the High Court to order a detailed inquiry into the conduct of the investigating officers, thereby ensuring that any future statements by the accused are recorded in compliance with constitutional safeguards. This approach not only challenges the evidentiary foundation but also safeguards the accused’s broader custodial rights.

Question: In what ways can the prosecution’s reliance on the accused’s finger injury be challenged, and what investigative gaps should a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court highlight to undermine the causal link between the injury and the alleged murder?

Answer: The prosecution’s narrative hinges on the assertion that the accused’s finger injury directly ties him to the stabbing, yet this link can be destabilised by exposing forensic and investigative omissions. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court should request the original medical certificate documenting the nature, depth, and timing of the injury, and compare it with the forensic analysis of the knife’s blade. If the injury is superficial and could plausibly result from an accidental cut unrelated to the crime, the causal inference collapses. Moreover, the counsel must point out that the police failed to secure a contemporaneous photograph of the injury, nor did they obtain a statement from a medical practitioner confirming that the wound was consistent with a defensive or offensive act. The absence of a detailed forensic comparison between the blood‑stain pattern on the knife and the victim’s blood type further weakens the prosecution’s claim. Additionally, the investigative report should be examined for any mention of alternative explanations for the injury, such as a self‑inflicted wound or an accidental cut while handling the weapon. By highlighting these gaps, the lawyer can argue that the prosecution’s reliance on the injury is speculative and not corroborated by scientific evidence. The strategy also involves questioning the chain‑of‑custody of the weapon; if the knife was recovered from a location separate from the scene, the link between the injury and the murder becomes tenuous. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, preparing the revision, would stress that the trial court’s acceptance of the injury as conclusive proof constitutes a misappreciation of evidentiary standards, and that the High Court should therefore set aside the conviction on the ground of insufficient proof of the essential element of causation.

Question: What are the viable high‑court remedies beyond a revision petition, such as writs, that lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court can consider to protect the accused’s liberty while the revision is pending, and how should they coordinate with lawyers in Chandigarh High Court?

Answer: While the revision petition addresses the substantive error in admitting the dying declaration, the accused’s continued incarceration poses an immediate liberty concern that can be tackled through ancillary writ remedies. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court may file a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the detention is predicated on a flawed conviction, thereby invoking the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. Simultaneously, a petition for bail pending the outcome of the revision can be pursued, emphasizing the lack of a credible evidentiary foundation and the risk of undue hardship. The counsel should also consider invoking the writ of certiorari to quash the lower court’s order if it is shown to be ultra vires. Coordination with lawyers in Chandigarh High Court is essential to ensure that any writ filed in the capital jurisdiction aligns with the strategy in the revision petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Chandigarh counsel can assist in gathering fresh medical reports, affidavits from forensic experts, and any new evidence that may bolster the habeas corpus application, while the Punjab and Haryana counsel focuses on the legal error concerning the dying declaration. By presenting a unified front, the two sets of lawyers can argue that the procedural defects not only invalidate the conviction but also render the continued detention unlawful. The combined approach maximises the chances of securing interim relief, thereby preserving the accused’s liberty and ensuring that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is fully exercised to correct both substantive and procedural injustices.