Can the accused prove that the extra judicial confession recorded by a passer by is unreliable and seek reversal of the murder conviction in a Punjab and Haryana High Court appeal?

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

Suppose a person is arrested after a night‑time assault in a semi‑urban market area, where the victim, a local shop‑owner, is found dead with multiple stab wounds and a kitchen knife recovered from the scene bearing traces of blood; the accused, who had been detained for several days, later submits a written statement to the police claiming that he had merely been present at the location and that the knife was planted, while an unrelated passer‑by testifies that the accused confessed to the killing while sharing a tea at a roadside stall.

The prosecution builds its case on three pillars: the victim’s family’s FIR alleging that the accused attacked the shop‑owner over a disputed debt, the forensic report confirming that the blood on the knife matches the victim, and the extra‑judicial confession recorded by the passer‑by, who had no apparent motive to lie. The defence argues that the confession was obtained under duress and that the forensic link, though present, does not prove the accused’s possession of the weapon at the time of the offence.

At the trial stage before the Sessions Court, the accused raises the standard factual defences of alibi and lack of motive, but these arguments do not address the core evidentiary issue: whether the extra‑judicial confession can be admitted as reliable and corroborated evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Because the confession is central to the prosecution’s narrative, a mere factual rebuttal is insufficient; the matter requires a higher judicial scrutiny of the admissibility standards and the interplay between confession and corroborative material.

Following the conviction and a death‑penalty sentence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused files a petition challenging the conviction on the ground that the confession was involuntary and that the forensic evidence, standing alone, does not satisfy the requirement of corroboration. The legal problem, therefore, is two‑fold: first, to determine whether the extra‑judicial confession meets the reliability and corroboration tests, and second, to assess whether the conviction can stand when the confession’s admissibility is contested.

Because the conviction was handed down by a Sessions Judge, the appropriate procedural route is a criminal appeal to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. An appeal at this level permits a comprehensive review of both factual findings and legal principles, including the admissibility of confessions, the sufficiency of forensic evidence, and the application of the doctrine of corroboration. The appeal must be drafted to specifically raise the question of whether the extra‑judicial confession, as recorded by the passer‑by, satisfies the reliability test—i.e., the confessor had no animus or incentive to fabricate—and the corroboration test—i.e., independent material such as the blood‑stained knife links the accused to the crime.

In preparing the appeal, the accused engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who meticulously cites precedents on extra‑judicial confessions, emphasizing that the Supreme Court has consistently required both reliability and corroboration before such statements can be used to sustain a conviction. The counsel also highlights that the forensic report, while establishing a blood match, does not prove the accused’s control over the weapon at the crucial moment, thereby failing the corroboration requirement when considered in isolation.

The appeal further requests the High Court to entertain a revision of the conviction on the basis that the Sessions Court erred in admitting the confession without a proper hearing on its voluntariness. It seeks a quashing of the death sentence and, alternatively, a commutation to life imprisonment, arguing that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under the Constitution were breached when the confession was admitted without the accused being afforded the opportunity to cross‑examine the passer‑by.

To strengthen the petition, the accused also retains a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who, together with other lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, prepares a parallel writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the conviction violates the right to a fair trial. This dual strategy underscores the necessity of approaching the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as it possesses the jurisdiction to entertain both the criminal appeal and the constitutional writ, thereby providing a comprehensive forum for redress.

Thus, the procedural solution lies in filing a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, complemented by a constitutional writ, to challenge the admissibility of the extra‑judicial confession and the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence. The appeal offers the only avenue through which the accused can obtain a judicial re‑examination of the evidentiary foundations of the conviction, a re‑assessment that cannot be achieved through a simple factual defence at the trial level.

Question: Whether the extra‑judicial confession recorded by the passer‑by can be admitted as reliable evidence in the appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, given the alleged absence of motive to fabricate and the circumstances of its recording?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused was arrested after a night‑time assault that resulted in the death of a shop‑owner. A passer‑by, who was sharing tea with the accused at a roadside stall, later testified that the accused confessed to the killing. The prosecution relies on this statement as a cornerstone of its case, while the defence contends that the confession was extracted under duress and therefore lacks voluntariness. The legal problem therefore centres on the admissibility of an extra‑judicial confession, which under Indian evidentiary law must satisfy two distinct thresholds: a reliability test examining the confessor’s motive, and a corroboration test requiring independent material that links the accused to the offence. In the present scenario, the passer‑by had no apparent animus against the accused, which bolsters the reliability argument. However, the reliability test alone is insufficient; the High Court must also assess whether the confession is corroborated by other evidence, such as the forensic link between the victim’s blood and the knife recovered at the scene. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the confession, though voluntarily made, must be scrutinised in the context of the accused’s custodial status at the time of the alleged admission, as any coercive environment could vitiate voluntariness. Procedurally, the appeal will invite the High Court to re‑examine the trial record, hear arguments on the confession’s admissibility, and determine whether the lower court erred in admitting it without a dedicated hearing on voluntariness. The practical implication for the accused is that if the High Court finds the confession inadmissible, the prosecution’s case may collapse, potentially leading to a quashing of the conviction or a reduction of the death sentence. Conversely, if the court upholds the confession’s reliability and finds sufficient corroboration, the conviction will likely stand, and the accused will have to focus on other grounds of relief, such as challenging the sentencing severity. The outcome will also guide the prosecution on the evidentiary weight it can assign to similar extra‑judicial statements in future cases.

Question: How does the forensic evidence of a blood‑stained kitchen knife satisfy the legal requirement of corroboration for the extra‑judicial confession, and does it alone establish the accused’s possession of the weapon at the time of the murder?

Answer: The forensic report confirms that the blood on the recovered kitchen knife matches the victim’s DNA, establishing a material link between the weapon and the homicide. Nonetheless, the legal issue is whether this forensic link constitutes sufficient corroboration of the extra‑judicial confession. Under the doctrine of corroboration, the prosecution must present independent evidence that not only ties the weapon to the victim but also demonstrates the accused’s control over the weapon during the commission of the offence. In the factual scenario, the accused claims that the knife was planted, and the defence points out that the forensic match does not prove the accused’s possession of the knife at the crucial moment. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that while the blood match is probative, it falls short of establishing the chain of custody linking the accused to the knife, especially in the absence of fingerprints, DNA on the handle, or eyewitness testimony placing the accused with the weapon. The High Court, when reviewing the appeal, will need to assess whether the forensic evidence, taken together with the confession, meets the two‑fold test of corroboration. If the court determines that the forensic evidence merely confirms the victim’s blood but does not demonstrate the accused’s possession, the corroboration requirement may not be satisfied, rendering the confession vulnerable to exclusion. The procedural consequence is that the appellate court may remand the matter for a fresh evidentiary hearing or direct the trial court to reconsider the conviction on the basis of insufficient corroboration. For the complainant, a finding of inadequate corroboration could mean a setback in securing a conviction, while for the accused it could open the door to a reduction of the death penalty or even an acquittal. The prosecution, on the other hand, would need to consider whether additional material—such as CCTV footage, eyewitness identification, or forensic traces on the accused’s clothing—could be introduced to bridge the evidentiary gap. Ultimately, the High Court’s assessment of the forensic evidence’s corroborative value will shape the fate of the appeal and determine whether the conviction can be sustained on the existing record.

Question: What procedural avenues are available to the accused in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to challenge both the conviction and the death‑penalty sentence, and how might a writ under article 226 complement the criminal appeal?

Answer: The accused has initiated a criminal appeal against the conviction and death‑penalty sentence handed down by the Sessions Court. Under the hierarchy of criminal procedure, the appropriate forum for reviewing a conviction by a Sessions Judge is the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which possesses jurisdiction to entertain both the appeal on factual findings and the legal questions concerning admissibility of evidence. In addition to the appeal, the accused has filed a parallel writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, alleging violation of the right to a fair trial and procedural due process. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will contend that the writ provides a powerful constitutional remedy to challenge the legality of the conviction itself, especially where the trial court may have erred in admitting evidence without a proper hearing on voluntariness. The writ can seek a stay of execution of the death sentence, an order directing the trial court to re‑examine the confession, or even a directive for a fresh trial if fundamental rights were breached. Procedurally, the High Court may either hear the writ and appeal together, given its jurisdiction to entertain both, or may decide to stay the appeal pending resolution of the writ, thereby preserving the accused’s life pending a full constitutional review. The practical implication for the accused is that a successful writ could result in an immediate suspension of the death penalty, providing breathing space while the substantive appeal proceeds. For the prosecution, the dual proceedings demand careful coordination to defend the conviction on both statutory and constitutional grounds, ensuring that any procedural lapses identified in the writ are addressed in the appeal. The High Court’s decision on whether to merge the proceedings or keep them distinct will affect the timeline and the strategic posture of both parties, potentially influencing the final relief granted.

Question: In what circumstances could the accused obtain bail or a stay of execution pending the outcome of the appeal, and what role do constitutional safeguards play in such a relief?

Answer: The accused is currently in custody following conviction for murder and the imposition of the death penalty. Under criminal procedural law, bail is generally unavailable after sentencing to death, but the High Court retains the power to grant a stay of execution or a temporary release on bail if it is convinced that the appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact that could affect the conviction. The factual backdrop includes allegations of involuntary confession and insufficient corroboration, both of which constitute serious doubts about the safety of the conviction. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty, as enshrined in article 21, mandates that a person not be executed until all legal remedies are exhausted and the conviction is affirmed beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, therefore, may issue a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal, especially where the death penalty is involved and the appeal raises issues of evidentiary admissibility. The procedural consequence of such a stay is that the execution of the sentence is halted, preserving the status quo while the appellate court examines the merits of the case. For the complainant, a stay may be perceived as a delay in justice, but it also ensures that the final judgment is rendered after thorough legal scrutiny. If bail is granted, the accused would be released on conditions, such as surrender of passport and regular reporting to the police, which serves the dual purpose of safeguarding the public interest and respecting the accused’s constitutional rights. The practical implication is that the accused gains temporary liberty, reducing the psychological burden of death‑row status, while the prosecution must continue to prepare its case for the appeal, aware that any procedural misstep could be fatal to the conviction.

Question: How does the allegation of duress in obtaining the confession affect the accused’s right to a fair trial, and what standards will the Punjab and Haryana High Court apply to evaluate the voluntariness of the statement?

Answer: The defence asserts that the confession recorded by the passer‑by was procured under duress, contending that the accused was in police custody and subjected to psychological pressure, thereby compromising the voluntariness of the statement. The legal issue revolves around the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial, which includes the guarantee that any confession must be made voluntarily, without coercion, and with full awareness of its consequences. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will emphasize that the High Court must apply the established jurisprudential standards for assessing voluntariness: examining the circumstances of the interrogation, the presence or absence of threats, the mental and physical condition of the accused, and whether any inducements were offered. The court will also consider whether the accused was afforded the opportunity to consult counsel before making the statement, as the denial of legal assistance can be indicative of duress. Procedurally, the High Court may order a re‑examination of the police records, seek affidavits from the investigating officers, and possibly summon the passer‑by for cross‑examination to determine the exact context of the confession. If the court finds that the confession was not voluntary, it must be excluded from the evidence, which could critically weaken the prosecution’s case, especially if the forensic evidence alone is deemed insufficient for corroboration. For the complainant, the exclusion of the confession could mean a loss of a key piece of evidence, potentially jeopardising the conviction. For the accused, a successful challenge on the basis of duress would reinforce the constitutional safeguard against compelled self‑incrimination and could lead to a quashing of the death sentence or a reduction of the charge. The High Court’s rigorous scrutiny of the confession’s voluntariness thus serves as a vital check on investigative practices and upholds the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Question: Why does the remedy against the conviction and death sentence lie before the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead of any other judicial forum?

Answer: The conviction was delivered by a Sessions Judge, who is a court of first appeal for offences triable by a Sessions Court. Under the hierarchy of criminal jurisdiction, any aggrieved party who wishes to challenge a judgment of a Sessions Court must approach the High Court that has territorial jurisdiction over the district where the trial was held. In the present facts the trial took place in a district that falls within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which therefore possesses the statutory power to entertain a criminal appeal, to review both factual findings and legal principles, and to pass any appropriate relief, including quashing of the conviction, commutation of the sentence, or ordering a retrial. The High Court’s appellate jurisdiction is not limited to questions of law; it also permits a re‑examination of the evidential matrix, such as the admissibility of an extra‑judicial confession and the sufficiency of forensic corroboration. This broad scope is essential because the accused’s principal ground of challenge is the alleged involuntary nature of the confession and the alleged insufficiency of the blood‑stain evidence, matters that cannot be resolved by a mere factual rebuttal. Moreover, the High Court is the only forum empowered to entertain a revision petition under the criminal procedure code, which is a distinct remedy from the ordinary appeal and can be invoked when the appellate court is alleged to have committed a jurisdictional error. The procedural route therefore mandates filing a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where a competent lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can frame the petition to raise the reliability and corroboration tests, seek a stay of execution, and request a detailed judicial scrutiny that is unavailable at the trial level. The High Court’s jurisdiction also ensures that any subsequent writ petition under article 226 can be heard concurrently, providing a comprehensive forum for redress.

Question: What procedural steps must the accused follow to file a criminal appeal, and how does the involvement of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court influence the strategy?

Answer: The procedural ladder begins with the preparation of a notice of appeal, which must be filed within the period prescribed by the criminal procedure code, typically thirty days from the date of the judgment. The notice must state the grounds of appeal, specifically highlighting the alleged error in admitting the extra‑judicial confession and the contention that the forensic evidence does not meet the corroboration requirement. After the notice, the appellant must file a detailed appeal memorandum, annexing the trial record, the FIR, the forensic report, and the statement of the passer‑by. The memorandum must articulate the legal tests for reliability and corroboration, cite precedents, and request that the High Court set aside the conviction or at least commute the death sentence. Service of the appeal on the prosecution and the complainant is mandatory, followed by the filing of a copy with the court registry. Once the appeal is admitted, the High Court may issue a notice to the State, schedule a hearing, and consider any interim relief, such as a stay of execution. Engaging lawyers in Chandigarh High Court becomes strategic because the accused may also wish to pursue a parallel writ petition under article 226, which is within the same High Court’s jurisdiction. Lawyers familiar with the procedural nuances of the Chandigarh High Court can coordinate the timing of the appeal and the writ, ensuring that the writ does not prejudice the appeal and vice versa. They can also advise on the filing of a bail application pending the appeal, leveraging the High Court’s power to grant interim bail even in capital cases. The coordination of both remedies requires meticulous docket management, and the expertise of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court ensures that procedural deadlines are met, that the appeal is framed in a manner that complements the writ, and that the overall litigation strategy maximizes the chances of obtaining a favorable judicial review.

Question: How does the High Court’s power to entertain a writ under article 226 complement the criminal appeal, and why might the accused seek a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court for that purpose?

Answer: Article 226 of the Constitution empowers a High Court to issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or habeas corpus when a fundamental right is infringed. In the present scenario the accused alleges a violation of the right to a fair trial, specifically that the extra‑judicial confession was admitted without a proper hearing on its voluntariness, thereby breaching the due‑process guarantee. A writ petition can be filed concurrently with the criminal appeal, allowing the court to examine the constitutional dimension while the appeal addresses the substantive criminal law issues. The writ can seek an interim stay of the death sentence, a direction for a fresh hearing on the confession, or even a quashing of the conviction if the High Court finds the procedural safeguards were grossly violated. The advantage of a writ lies in its ability to provide immediate relief, which is crucial when the execution of a death sentence is imminent. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is advisable because such counsel can navigate the specific procedural requisites for a writ, such as drafting a concise prayer, attaching the relevant portions of the judgment, and citing constitutional jurisprudence. Moreover, the lawyer can synchronize the writ with the criminal appeal, ensuring that arguments on admissibility and corroboration are consistently presented across both proceedings. This coordinated approach prevents conflicting orders and maximizes the potential for the High Court to grant a comprehensive remedy that addresses both the procedural infirmities and the substantive conviction. The lawyer’s familiarity with the High Court’s docket, bench composition, and precedent on article 226 petitions further enhances the likelihood of obtaining an effective stay and a thorough judicial review.

Question: Why is a mere factual defence of alibi insufficient at the appellate stage, and how do lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court structure arguments on the admissibility of the extra‑judicial confession?

Answer: At the trial level, an alibi defence can be raised by producing evidence that the accused was elsewhere when the crime occurred. However, on appeal the High Court does not re‑hear the evidence afresh; it reviews the trial court’s findings for legal error. Consequently, a bare assertion of alibi, without challenging the legal basis on which the confession was admitted, does not meet the threshold for appellate relief. The appellate court is concerned with whether the trial court correctly applied the legal tests for reliability and corroboration of the confession, and whether the conviction rested on a legally admissible foundation. Therefore, the defence must pivot from factual rebuttal to a legal challenge, arguing that the confession was involuntary, that the passer‑by had a potential motive to fabricate, and that the forensic evidence, while linking the blood to the victim, does not establish the accused’s possession of the knife at the crucial moment. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court craft their submissions by first laying down the jurisprudential standards for extra‑judicial confessions, citing leading decisions that require both reliability and corroboration. They then dissect the factual matrix, pointing out inconsistencies in the passer‑by’s testimony, the absence of a contemporaneous recording, and the lack of independent evidence that the accused handled the weapon. The counsel also emphasizes that the forensic report, though scientifically sound, is insufficient as sole corroboration because it does not prove control or intent. By framing the appeal around these legal infirmities, the lawyers aim to persuade the High Court that the conviction is unsustainable, thereby seeking either a quashing of the judgment or a remand for retrial. This approach transcends the limitations of a simple alibi and aligns the defence with the procedural prerogatives of the appellate forum.

Question: How can the defence challenge the admissibility of the extra‑judicial confession recorded by the passer‑by, and what procedural steps must be taken in the criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to ensure the confession is examined for voluntariness, reliability and lack of corroboration?

Answer: The defence must first identify the procedural defect that the confession was admitted without a dedicated hearing on its voluntariness. In the trial record the police diary shows the passer‑by’s statement was taken informally, without the accused being present, and no opportunity was afforded to cross‑examine the witness. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will therefore draft a specific ground of appeal contending that the Sessions Judge erred in admitting the confession under the doctrine that extra‑judicial statements are admissible only when they satisfy both the reliability and corroboration tests. The appeal should cite precedent that requires a separate inquiry into the circumstances of the confession, emphasizing that the passer‑by had no statutory duty to record the statement and that the accused was denied the constitutional right to confront the witness. The pleading must attach the original police diary entry, the signed affidavit of the passer‑by, and any audio or video material, if existent, to demonstrate the informal nature of the capture. The defence should also request that the High Court direct the investigating agency to produce the original note‑book and to disclose any contemporaneous notes that might reveal coercion or inducement. By raising the issue at the appellate stage, the court can remand for a fresh hearing on the confession, potentially leading to its exclusion or to a reduced weight in the judgment. If the confession is struck, the prosecution’s case collapses because the forensic evidence alone does not establish possession of the knife at the time of the murder. Consequently, the appeal strategy hinges on exposing the procedural lapse, securing a declaration that the confession was involuntary, and arguing that without it the conviction cannot stand.

Question: What aspects of the forensic report on the blood‑stained knife should be scrutinised for chain‑of‑custody gaps or expert bias, and how can a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court use those weaknesses to argue that the material does not satisfy the corroboration requirement?

Answer: The forensic report must be examined for the precise moments when the knife was collected, sealed, and examined. The defence should request the original collection log, the seal numbers, and the names of the officers who handled the weapon. Any discrepancy, such as the knife being transferred from the crime scene to the police station without a documented hand‑over, creates a chain‑of‑custody break that undermines the evidentiary value. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will also probe the expert’s qualifications, the methodology used to match the blood, and whether the laboratory followed standard operating procedures. If the report merely states a “match” without providing the statistical probability or the type of DNA analysis, the defence can argue that the conclusion is speculative. Moreover, the report should be cross‑checked against the autopsy findings to confirm that the victim’s blood type aligns with the forensic result. The defence can file an application for a forensic re‑examination, citing the possibility of contamination during transport or the presence of mixed DNA from multiple sources, especially in a market area where many people handle knives. By highlighting these gaps, the defence seeks to demonstrate that the knife, while bearing blood, does not conclusively link the accused to the act of stabbing at the crucial moment. The High Court may then deem the forensic evidence insufficient for corroboration, especially when the confession is also excluded. This approach reduces the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial material and strengthens the argument for quashing the conviction or at least commuting the death sentence.

Question: Considering the accused is in custody pending a death‑penalty appeal, what are the legal risks associated with continued detention, and how can lawyers in Chandigarh High Court argue for bail or a stay of execution while the appeal is being heard?

Answer: Continued detention of a person sentenced to death raises serious humanitarian and procedural concerns. The defence must first establish that the appeal raises a substantial question of law, namely the admissibility of the confession and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will file a bail application under the relevant bail provisions, emphasizing that the accused has already served several days in custody and that the appeal is not merely a procedural formality but a genuine challenge to the conviction’s foundation. The application should attach the appeal petition, the judgment, and a copy of the forensic report to show that the case is not hopeless. The counsel will also invoke the constitutional right to life and personal liberty, arguing that the death sentence should not be executed until the appellate court has fully examined the evidential defects. Additionally, the defence can seek a stay of execution by filing a petition under article 226, contending that the execution would be irreversible if the High Court later finds the confession inadmissible. The argument should highlight that the accused’s health is stable, there is no flight risk, and the alleged motive is weak, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail even in capital cases. By securing bail or a stay, the defence not only protects the accused from irreversible harm but also gains strategic advantage, allowing the accused to assist in gathering further evidence, such as locating additional witnesses who can testify to the lack of motive or to the possibility of the knife being planted. The court’s discretion to grant bail in death‑penalty matters is exercised sparingly, but the presence of serious procedural flaws can tip the balance in favour of the defence.

Question: How should the defence structure the criminal appeal to simultaneously attack the prosecution’s narrative, preserve the accused’s alibi, and request a commutation of the death sentence, and what role do lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court play in coordinating the parallel writ petition under article 226?

Answer: The criminal appeal must be drafted as a comprehensive document that sets out three intertwined strands: a challenge to the evidentiary foundation, a reinforcement of the accused’s alibi, and a plea for commutation. First, the appeal should open with a concise statement of facts, highlighting that the accused was merely present at the market and that no eyewitness placed him at the scene of the stabbing. The defence will then attach the passer‑by’s statement, the shop‑owner’s CCTV footage (if any), and testimonies of other market vendors who can corroborate the alibi. Next, the appeal must methodically dismantle the prosecution’s case by arguing that the extra‑judicial confession fails the reliability test, that the forensic evidence lacks direct linkage, and that the motive asserted by the complainant is speculative. Each point should be supported by references to the FIR, the forensic report, and the police diary, with a request that the High Court order a re‑examination of the forensic material. Finally, the appeal should invoke the constitutional principle that death is the “rarest of rare” punishment, and that the presence of serious doubts about the conviction mandates commutation to life imprisonment. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court will coordinate the parallel writ petition under article 226, ensuring that the same factual matrix is presented to the court for relief on constitutional grounds, such as violation of the right to a fair trial and due process. By filing both the criminal appeal and the writ, the defence creates a dual avenue for relief: the appellate court can overturn the conviction, and the writ can stay the execution pending a full hearing. The coordination between the two sets of counsel ensures consistent arguments, avoids duplication, and maximises the chance of obtaining either a quashing of the conviction or at least a commutation of the death sentence.