Can the accused challenge the death sentence by filing a revision petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the grounds of disputed ballistic evidence and an inordinate two year execution delay?

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

Suppose a person accused of a violent offence is arrested after a night‑time incident in a remote village where a firearm was allegedly used to kill a local shopkeeper and to abduct a passer‑by who later dies from injuries; the investigating agency files an FIR describing the use of a .22‑calibre pistol, and the Sessions Court convicts the accused under the provisions dealing with murder, kidnapping with intent to murder and rioting, imposing a death sentence for the murder and life transportation for the kidnapping‑murder, while setting aside the rioting charge.

The accused maintains that the medical report prepared by the government doctor shows multiple entry wounds of varying calibres, and that the recovered cartridge case does not conclusively match the pistol described in the FIR; further, the accused points out that more than two years have elapsed between the pronouncement of the death sentence and the scheduled date of execution, arguing that such delay should merit commutation of the capital punishment.

At the trial stage, the defence relied on a factual rebuttal that the weapon recovered from the scene was a country‑made pistol, and that the witness statements referring to “gun‑fire” were consistent with a pistol discharge; however, the prosecution’s case was upheld on the basis that the burden of proof had been discharged, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction, only modifying the rioting charge.

Because the factual dispute over the weapon’s calibre and the procedural grievance of delay cannot be fully resolved through a simple appeal on the merits of the conviction, the accused must seek a higher‑order remedy that can address both the alleged material inconsistency in the evidence and the question of excessive delay in execution; an ordinary appeal would not permit a fresh examination of the evidentiary record or a direct challenge to the sentencing discretion.

Consequently, the appropriate procedural route is to file a revision petition under the Criminal Procedure Code before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, invoking the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to examine whether the lower court committed a jurisdictional error, a patent illegality, or a miscarriage of justice in upholding the death sentence despite the evidential doubts and the inordinate delay.

A seasoned lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the petition must specifically allege that the Sessions Court erred in its appreciation of the forensic evidence and that the delay in execution violates the principles of natural justice, while a team of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would prepare a detailed annex of the medical report, expert opinions on ballistic compatibility, and a chronology of the execution timeline to substantiate the claim of prejudice.

Similarly, a competent lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would frame the revision as a combined question of law and fact, seeking the High Court’s power under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the death sentence and to remit the case for re‑examination of the forensic evidence, or alternatively, to direct the appropriate authority to commute the sentence to life imprisonment in view of the delay.

The revision petition must also invoke the High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution, as exercised by lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, to issue a writ of certiorari that can set aside the conviction if it is found that the lower court acted without jurisdiction or on a misapprehension of the medical findings, thereby providing a comprehensive remedy that goes beyond the limited scope of a standard appeal.

In the factual matrix, the medical report indicates that the victim sustained three distinct entry wounds, one of which aligns with a .22‑calibre projectile while the others suggest a larger calibre; the prosecution’s reliance on a single empty cartridge recovered from the scene is therefore challenged as insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused’s pistol caused the fatal injuries, a point that the revision petition emphasizes as a material inconsistency.

The delay argument is supported by a timeline showing that the death sentence was pronounced in early 2022, while the execution date was scheduled for late 2024, a period during which the accused remained on death row; the petition contends that such a lapse infringes the accused’s right to a speedy trial and execution, and that the executive’s discretion to delay cannot override the constitutional guarantee against inhuman treatment.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, is the proper forum because the conviction and sentence were rendered by a Sessions Court within its territorial jurisdiction, and the High Court possesses the authority to entertain revision petitions that question the legality of the lower court’s order, especially when the death penalty is at stake.

Thus, the remedy lies in filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking quashing of the death sentence on the grounds of evidentiary inconsistency and excessive delay, and alternatively, requesting commutation of the capital punishment to life imprisonment; this procedural strategy aligns with the legal principles articulated in the earlier Supreme Court decision, while adapting the remedy to the appropriate High Court forum.

Question: Is a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the correct procedural vehicle for the accused to challenge both the evidential doubts about the weapon and the alleged inordinate delay in execution, or should the accused pursue a standard appeal or another remedy?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused was convicted by a Sessions Court of murder, kidnapping‑with‑intent‑to‑murder and rioting, receiving a death sentence for the murder and life transportation for the kidnapping‑murder. The conviction rests on an FIR that describes a .22‑calibre pistol, while the defence points to a medical report indicating multiple entry wounds of differing calibres and a cartridge that does not conclusively match the weapon. In addition, more than two years have elapsed between the pronouncement of the death sentence and the scheduled date of execution, a period the accused argues violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy execution. A standard appeal under the ordinary appellate route permits a review of legal errors but does not allow a fresh re‑examination of the evidentiary record or a direct challenge to the sentencing discretion based on delay. The revision petition, by contrast, is an extraordinary remedy that enables the High Court to scrutinise whether the lower court committed a jurisdictional error, a patent illegality, or a miscarriage of justice. The Punjab and Haryana High Court possesses supervisory jurisdiction over Sessions Courts within its territorial ambit and can entertain a revision that raises both factual and procedural infirmities. A seasoned lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the revision petition is the only avenue that simultaneously permits the accused to contest the forensic inconsistencies and to invoke the principle that excessive delay in carrying out a death sentence may amount to inhuman treatment, thereby justifying commutation. The practical implication is that, if the revision is accepted, the High Court can quash the death sentence, remit the case for fresh evidence appraisal, or direct commutation, whereas a routine appeal would likely be confined to legal questions already addressed by the appellate court. Consequently, the revision petition emerges as the appropriate procedural instrument to achieve the comprehensive relief sought by the accused.

Question: Can the alleged material inconsistency between the medical report’s multiple calibre wounds and the single .22‑calibre pistol described in the FIR be effectively raised and examined in a revision petition, despite the general rule that revisions do not entertain fresh evidence?

Answer: The core factual dispute centres on whether the weapon recovered from the scene – a country‑made pistol – can be said to have caused the three distinct entry wounds, one of which aligns with a .22‑calibre projectile while the others suggest a larger calibre. The prosecution’s case hinges on the FIR’s description of a .22‑calibre pistol and the recovery of an empty cartridge, whereas the defence submits a government‑prepared medical report and expert testimony indicating a mismatch. In a revision petition, the High Court’s jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, patent illegality, or miscarriage of justice, and it ordinarily does not admit fresh evidence. However, when the alleged error pertains to the lower court’s appreciation of existing evidence – specifically, a misapprehension of the forensic report – the revision can be framed as a challenge to a patent illegality. A competent lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the Sessions Court’s finding that the evidence “discharged the burden of proof” was based on a misinterpretation of the medical report, constituting a miscarriage of justice. The revision petition would attach the medical report, ballistic expert opinions, and a comparative analysis of the cartridge case, not as new evidence but as material already part of the record that the lower court allegedly ignored or misread. The High Court, exercising its supervisory power, can order a re‑examination of the forensic findings, direct the trial court to consider the expert opinions, or even set aside the conviction if it finds that the evidential inconsistency creates reasonable doubt. Practically, this approach allows the accused to confront the factual foundation of the conviction without breaching the procedural limitation against fresh evidence, thereby preserving the integrity of the judicial process while addressing the substantive defence.

Question: Does the two‑year lapse between the pronouncement of the death sentence and the scheduled execution constitute a sufficient ground for the High Court, in a revision petition, to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment on the basis of the right to a speedy execution?

Answer: The accused’s claim rests on the constitutional principle that a person sentenced to death must not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, which includes an unreasonable delay in carrying out the execution. The factual timeline shows the death sentence was pronounced in early 2022, while the execution date was fixed for late 2024, creating a period of over two years during which the accused remained on death row. While the Supreme Court has held that delay in execution is a factor to be considered, it is not a per se bar to carrying out the sentence; the delay must be shown to be inordinate, unexplained, and causing mental anguish that amounts to cruel treatment. In a revision petition, the High Court can invoke its power under the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari, reviewing whether the lower court’s order was made in violation of the right to speedy execution. A diligent lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasise that the delay was not merely administrative but stemmed from procedural procrastination, lack of a clear execution schedule, and repeated adjournments, thereby infringing the accused’s right to a humane conclusion of the criminal process. The High Court, exercising its discretion, may either commute the death sentence to life imprisonment or direct the executive to expedite the execution within a reasonable timeframe, ensuring compliance with constitutional guarantees. The practical implication for the prosecution is that a commutation would reduce the severity of the penalty, while for the accused it would avert the ultimate deprivation of life. Thus, the delay, when framed as a breach of the right to speedy execution, provides a viable ground for the High Court to intervene in the revision petition.

Question: What are the procedural steps, evidentiary requirements, and possible outcomes once the revision petition is filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and how will each outcome affect the accused, the complainant, and the prosecution?

Answer: Upon filing the revision petition, the petitioner must submit a concise memorandum outlining the alleged jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or miscarriage of justice, accompanied by annexures such as the FIR, trial court judgment, medical report, ballistic expert opinions, and a chronology of the execution delay. The petition must be served on the respondent Sessions Court and the State, allowing them to file a counter‑statement. The Punjab and Haryana High Court will then issue notice and may admit the petition if it finds a prima facie case of error. A lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise that the court may either hear the matter on the papers or order a hearing where oral arguments are presented. During the hearing, the court can scrutinise whether the lower court misapprehended the forensic evidence or ignored the delay, and it may direct the trial court to re‑evaluate the evidence, set aside the death sentence, remit the case for fresh trial, or commute the sentence to life imprisonment. If the High Court quashes the death sentence, the accused’s life is spared, and the prosecution may seek to reinstate the conviction on alternative grounds, though the evidential doubts may hinder that. If the court commutes the sentence, the accused will serve life imprisonment, reducing the severity of punishment while preserving the conviction. Should the High Court dismiss the revision, the death sentence remains intact, and the execution proceeds as scheduled, which would be a severe outcome for the accused but satisfy the complainant’s demand for retributive justice. For the prosecution, a favorable decision reinforces the trial court’s findings; an adverse decision may compel them to reassess investigative practices. Overall, the procedural route offers a comprehensive mechanism to address both factual and constitutional grievances, with outcomes ranging from full quashing to mere commutation, each carrying distinct ramifications for all parties involved.

Question: Why does the revision petition have to be filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than any other forum, given the conviction, death sentence and the forensic disputes?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the Sessions Court, situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, pronounced a death sentence on the accused after finding the forensic evidence sufficient to link the .22‑calibre pistol to the fatal injuries. Under the constitutional scheme, the High Court that supervises the Sessions Court possesses extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain revision petitions when a lower court is alleged to have committed a jurisdictional error, a patent illegality or a miscarriage of justice. The accused cannot rely on a simple appeal because the appeal is confined to questions of law and does not permit a fresh appraisal of the evidentiary record, especially the disputed ballistic report and the cartridge‑case inconsistency. By invoking the High Court’s supervisory power, the accused can ask the court to set aside the death sentence on the ground that the Sessions Court erred in its appreciation of the medical report and ignored the material inconsistency that may have led to a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the High Court’s power under the Constitution to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition enables the petitioner to challenge the legality of the conviction itself, not merely the sentence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would therefore structure the petition to demonstrate that the lower court acted beyond its jurisdiction by refusing to consider expert ballistic testimony that could create reasonable doubt. The procedural route follows from the fact that the conviction and sentence emanated from a court under the High Court’s appellate and revisionary jurisdiction; consequently, only that High Court can entertain a revision that revisits both factual and legal aspects. The practical implication is that the accused gains access to a forum capable of ordering a re‑examination of the forensic evidence, directing a fresh trial, or commuting the death sentence, remedies unavailable in a routine appeal. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is drafted in compliance with the High Court’s rules, that the annexures of medical reports and expert opinions are properly annexed, and that the petition correctly invokes both the revisionary jurisdiction and the writ jurisdiction, thereby maximizing the chance of relief.

Question: In what way does a purely factual defence based on the medical report and cartridge analysis fall short at the revision stage, and why must the accused seek a writ of certiorari?

Answer: At the trial, the defence relied on a factual rebuttal that the medical report indicated multiple entry wounds of differing calibres and that the recovered cartridge did not conclusively match the accused’s pistol. While such a factual defence is admissible in a trial, the appellate process limits the scope of review to errors of law and does not permit the introduction of fresh expert evidence. Consequently, the factual defence alone cannot overturn the conviction because the appellate court is bound by the record as it stood at the trial. The revision petition, however, is not constrained by the same limitation; it allows the petitioner to raise a question of law intertwined with a factual dispute that the lower court may have misapprehended. By seeking a writ of certiorari, the accused asks the Punjab and Haryana High Court to examine whether the Sessions Court acted without jurisdiction or on a misapprehension of the forensic evidence, which is a patent illegality. The writ jurisdiction is essential because it can set aside the conviction if the High Court finds that the lower court failed to apply the principles of natural justice in evaluating the medical report, thereby rendering the order ultra vires. Moreover, the writ of certiorari can compel the investigating agency to produce additional ballistic expert testimony, something a factual defence in a standard appeal cannot achieve. The practical implication is that the accused, through a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, can transform a factual dispute into a jurisdictional challenge, thereby opening the door for the High Court to order a re‑examination of the evidence or to remit the matter for a fresh trial. This procedural shift is crucial because it overcomes the procedural bar that would otherwise prevent the accused from introducing new forensic analysis at the appellate stage.

Question: How should the accused go about engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court and what procedural steps must be taken to file the revision petition, considering the need to address both evidentiary inconsistency and execution delay?

Answer: The accused, now in custody, should first approach a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who is experienced in criminal revision and writ practice. The lawyer will conduct a detailed case audit, collate the FIR, trial judgment, medical report, ballistic expert opinions and the chronology of the execution schedule. The next procedural step is to draft a revision petition that complies with the High Court’s rules of pleading, clearly stating that the Sessions Court committed a patent illegality by ignoring the forensic discrepancy and by allowing an inordinate delay that violates the right to speedy execution. The petition must annex the medical report, expert affidavits, and a timeline showing the two‑year lapse between sentencing and the slated execution date. After filing, the petition is served on the State and the investigating agency, who are required to file their responses. The lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will then move for interim relief, such as a stay of execution, invoking the High Court’s power under the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari. Simultaneously, the petition will request that the High Court either quash the death sentence or remit the case for re‑examination of the forensic evidence, and alternatively, direct the appropriate authority to commute the sentence to life imprisonment due to the delay. The procedural route follows from the facts because the conviction and sentence emanated from a court within the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, and the revision provides the only avenue to challenge both the evidentiary foundation and the sentencing discretion. Engaging lawyers in Chandigarh High Court ensures that the petition is filed in the correct venue, that service is effected properly, and that any interim applications for bail or stay are presented effectively, thereby safeguarding the accused’s liberty while the substantive issues are adjudicated.

Question: Why does the excessive delay between the death sentence and the scheduled execution strengthen the High Court’s power to commute or quash the sentence, and what relief can be realistically sought through a combined revision and writ petition?

Answer: The factual record shows that the death sentence was pronounced in early 2022, yet the execution was scheduled for late 2024, creating a two‑year interval during which the accused remained on death row. This delay engages the constitutional principle of the right to speedy execution, which, although not an absolute rule, is a recognized factor that can render a capital punishment inhuman or arbitrary. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can view the delay as a miscarriage of justice, especially when coupled with the unresolved forensic inconsistency. By filing a revision petition, the accused can ask the Punjab and Haryana High Court to examine whether the lower court’s order is vitiated by this delay, and by invoking a writ of certiorari, the petitioner can request that the High Court set aside the death sentence on the ground that the execution process violates the principles of natural justice. The realistic relief includes an order staying the execution, a direction to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, or a remand for a fresh trial to resolve the ballistic dispute. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the delay, together with the questionable forensic evidence, creates a reasonable doubt that the accused’s pistol caused the fatal injuries, thereby necessitating either a commutation or a full re‑examination. The practical implication for the prosecution is that it must either produce additional expert testimony to overcome the doubt or accept the High Court’s direction to commute. For the accused, the combined revision and writ route offers a comprehensive remedy that addresses both the substantive evidentiary challenge and the procedural infirmity of the execution delay, thereby maximizing the chance of preserving life and ensuring a fair trial.

Question: How should the defence evaluate the forensic discrepancy between the medical report indicating multiple calibres of entry wounds and the single cartridge recovered, and what evidentiary strategy can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court employ to challenge the conviction on this ground?

Answer: The factual matrix presents a medical report that records three distinct entry wounds, one compatible with a .22‑calibre projectile and two suggesting a larger calibre, while the prosecution relies on a solitary empty cartridge of .22‑calibre to link the accused’s pistol to the fatal injuries. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must first obtain the original autopsy sheets, ballistic expert notes, and the chain‑of‑custody documentation for the cartridge and the recovered pistol. The defence should commission an independent forensic specialist to conduct a comparative ballistic analysis, focusing on rifling marks, primer residue, and wound morphology to determine whether the larger wounds could have been inflicted by the same weapon or by a different firearm. The expert’s report, once authenticated, becomes a pivotal annex to the revision petition, demonstrating that the prosecution’s evidentiary foundation is fragile. Additionally, the defence must scrutinise the investigation file for any lapses in preserving the crime scene, such as failure to collect additional cartridges or to photograph the wound trajectories, which could indicate procedural negligence. By highlighting these gaps, the lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can argue that the lower court committed a patent illegality by accepting a tenuous forensic link as conclusive proof beyond reasonable doubt. The strategic narrative should stress that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution and that the existence of unexplained calibre variations creates a reasonable doubt that the accused’s pistol caused the fatal injuries. If the High Court is persuaded that the forensic evidence is materially inconsistent, it may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the death sentence or remit the matter for a fresh evidentiary hearing, thereby safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Question: In what manner can the prolonged interval between the pronouncement of the death sentence and the scheduled execution be leveraged by lawyers in Chandigarh High Court to seek commutation or a stay of execution?

Answer: The timeline reveals that the death sentence was pronounced in early 2022, while the execution date is slated for late 2024, amounting to an inordinate delay of over two years. This delay intersects with constitutional guarantees of speedy justice and protection against inhuman treatment. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court should assemble a chronological dossier that includes the sentencing order, all subsequent orders granting extensions, and any correspondence with the prison authorities. The defence must also gather medical records indicating the accused’s health status during the delay, as prolonged confinement on death row can exacerbate psychological distress, strengthening the argument of inhuman treatment. By invoking the principle that excessive delay, even if not mandated by statute, can constitute a ground for mercy, the counsel can file a revision petition that specifically alleges a violation of the accused’s right to a speedy execution. The petition should request a writ of certiorari to set aside the execution order on the basis that the executive’s discretion to defer execution cannot override constitutional safeguards. Moreover, the defence can cite comparative jurisprudence where courts have commuted death sentences due to similar delays, thereby establishing persuasive precedent. The strategic aim is to persuade the High Court to either commute the capital punishment to life imprisonment or, at a minimum, grant a stay of execution pending a thorough re‑examination of the forensic evidence. This approach not only addresses the immediate risk of execution but also creates an avenue for the accused to obtain a more favorable outcome while the higher court scrutinises the substantive merits of the case.

Question: What procedural irregularities in the FIR and investigation can be highlighted by a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to argue that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction?

Answer: The FIR, as drafted by the investigating agency, categorises the incident as a homicide involving a .22‑calibre pistol, yet it fails to record the presence of multiple calibres indicated by the medical report. Moreover, the investigation file shows that the crime scene was not photographed, and the recovered cartridge was the only ballistic evidence collected, despite the existence of multiple entry wounds. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must request the complete investigation report, including the FIR, the police diary, and any forensic lab certificates. By analysing these documents, the counsel can pinpoint omissions such as the absence of a thorough ballistic comparison, lack of statements from witnesses who might have observed the weapon, and failure to secure the victim’s clothing for forensic testing. These lapses constitute a breach of the procedural safeguards that ensure a fair investigation. The defence can argue that the trial court, by relying on an incomplete investigative record, committed a jurisdictional error, as the lower court is bound to assess the case only on the basis of material placed before it. Highlighting that the investigating agency did not adhere to the prescribed protocol for homicide investigations strengthens the claim of a patent illegality. The revision petition should therefore seek a quashing of the conviction on the ground that the trial court’s factual findings were predicated on a defective investigative process, and request that the matter be remitted for a fresh inquiry that complies with the procedural norms, thereby protecting the accused’s right to a lawful and fair trial.

Question: How can the defence address the issue of continued custody and the prospect of bail while the revision petition is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The accused remains in custodial detention, facing the imminent threat of execution, which raises urgent humanitarian concerns. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court should file an interim application for bail or, at the very least, a stay of execution, emphasizing that the revision petition raises substantial questions of fact and law that could overturn the death sentence. The application must be supported by a detailed affidavit outlining the medical report’s inconsistencies, the expert’s opinion on ballistic incompatibility, and the documented delay in execution, all of which create a reasonable doubt about the conviction’s validity. Additionally, the defence should attach a certificate from a psychiatrist attesting to the mental strain of prolonged death‑row confinement, thereby underscoring the risk of inhuman treatment. The High Court, when considering bail, will weigh the nature of the offences, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, and the seriousness of the pending legal questions. By presenting the revision petition as a genuine challenge to the conviction rather than a mere procedural maneuver, the counsel can argue that the accused does not pose a flight risk and that his continued detention would amount to an irreversible miscarriage of justice should the higher court later find the conviction unsafe. The strategic objective is to secure temporary liberty, which not only alleviates the immediate custodial hardship but also enables the accused to assist in preparing a robust defence for the forthcoming higher‑court hearing.

Question: What are the comparative advantages of pursuing a revision petition versus a writ of certiorari, and how should a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court decide the optimal forum for challenging both the evidentiary doubts and the execution delay?

Answer: The revision petition is a statutory remedy that permits the High Court to examine jurisdictional errors, patent illegality, or miscarriage of justice arising from the lower court’s order, while a writ of certiorari, issued under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, can set aside an order that is beyond the lower court’s authority or is founded on a misapprehension of material facts. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must assess which route offers the most comprehensive relief. The revision petition allows the inclusion of a detailed factual annex, such as the medical report, ballistic expert analysis, and the execution timeline, thereby facilitating a holistic review of both evidentiary and sentencing issues. However, a writ of certiorari can be framed to directly challenge the legality of the death‑sentence order on the ground that the trial court acted without jurisdiction by ignoring material forensic contradictions. The strategic choice hinges on the urgency of the execution date; a writ can be sought as an emergency remedy to stay the execution, whereas a revision petition may take longer but provides a broader platform to address the substantive merits. The counsel should therefore file a revision petition as the primary vehicle, supplemented by an urgent application for a writ of certiorari to obtain an immediate stay of execution. This dual approach ensures that the High Court’s supervisory powers are fully leveraged: the writ addresses the immediate life‑threatening aspect, while the revision petition tackles the deeper procedural and evidentiary defects. By coordinating these filings, the lawyer in Chandigarh High Court maximises the chances of both averting execution and securing a thorough re‑evaluation of the conviction.