Can the accused obtain a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on grounds of flawed identification parades and inadmissible weapon evidence?

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

Suppose a passenger‑laden minibus departs from a bustling market town in the northern plains and, while traversing a remote stretch of highway, is ambushed by a group of armed men who open fire, killing two travelers and seizing a licensed rifle and a revolver that the victims had been carrying for personal protection.

The incident is reported to the nearest police outpost, and an FIR is lodged describing the assault, the recovered firearms, and the presence of distinctive footprints near the scene. The investigating agency conducts a forensic sweep, collects shoe‑sole impressions, and seizes a blood‑stained shirt from a house belonging to one of the alleged assailants. Two identification parades are subsequently held in the district jail, during which a handful of eyewitnesses positively point to the accused and the accused’s footwear is demonstrated to match the impressions taken at the crime scene.

Both accused are apprehended after a brief period of evasion and are produced before the Sessions Court. The prosecution relies heavily on the eyewitness identifications, the recovered weapons, the matching footprints, and the fact that the accused fled the scene without providing any explanation. The trial judge, after hearing the prosecution’s case, convicts the accused of murder and imposes the death penalty, holding that the cumulative circumstantial matrix leaves no reasonable doubt of guilt.

Following the conviction, the accused contend that the identification parades were tainted by pre‑showing, that the weapons were improperly seized and should be excluded because one of the accused had previously been acquitted of an arms charge, and that the scientific basis of the footprint analysis is unsound. They argue that these defects, if accepted, would dismantle the prosecution’s case. However, a simple factual defence at the trial stage is no longer sufficient because the conviction has already been entered and the sentencing order is final, leaving the accused with limited avenues to challenge the judgment.

Because the regular appeal to the High Court on the merits has been exhausted, the only viable procedural route is to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a revision petition under the Criminal Procedure Code. A revision petition allows the High Court to examine whether the lower court committed a jurisdictional error, misapplied the law, or grossly erred in its appreciation of the evidence, even after the appeal stage has closed.

The revision petition must specifically allege that the Sessions Court erred in admitting the weapons as evidence despite the prior acquittal, that the identification parade was not conducted in accordance with the procedural safeguards required by law, and that the reliance on footprint evidence violated the standards of scientific admissibility. The petition seeks a quashing of the conviction, an order for a fresh trial, or, alternatively, an acquittal on the ground that the evidentiary foundation is fundamentally flawed.

In drafting the petition, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will meticulously cite the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indian Evidence Act, and prior judgments that delineate the limits of admissibility for identification and forensic evidence. The counsel will also reference the principle that a prior acquittal on a distinct charge does not automatically preclude the use of the same physical objects in a separate murder trial, but will argue that the specific circumstances of the earlier acquittal render the weapon evidence inadmissible in the present case.

For the accused, engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is essential, as the practitioner’s familiarity with the procedural nuances of revision and writ jurisdiction can shape the petition’s success. The representation may also involve lawyers in Chandigarh High Court collaborating with lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court to ensure that the arguments are framed consistently across the relevant jurisdictions, especially if the case also raises questions of inter‑state legal coordination.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court is the appropriate forum because it possesses the constitutional authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari, thereby reviewing the legality of the Sessions Court’s order. By filing a revision petition, the accused can invoke the High Court’s power to set aside the conviction if it finds that the lower court’s findings were perverse, that the evidence was improperly evaluated, or that the procedural safeguards guaranteed by law were breached.

In the petition, the accused will request that the High Court quash the death sentence, set aside the conviction, and direct the trial court to either conduct a fresh trial with proper evidentiary safeguards or to dismiss the charges altogether. The relief sought also includes an order for the release of the accused from custody pending the determination of the revision petition, thereby addressing the immediate hardship caused by continued detention.

Thus, the procedural solution to the legal problem presented by the flawed identification, questionable weapon recovery, and dubious footprint analysis lies in filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This remedy enables a higher judicial authority to scrutinise the lower court’s application of law and evidence, offering a chance to rectify the miscarriage of justice that the ordinary factual defence could not achieve at the trial stage.

Question: Is a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the correct procedural avenue for the accused after the regular appeal on the merits has been exhausted, and what are the legal thresholds that must be satisfied for the High Court to entertain such a petition?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused were convicted of murder by the Sessions Court, sentenced to death, and that the appeal to the High Court on the merits was pursued and ultimately dismissed. Under the criminal procedural framework, once the appellate remedy is exhausted, the only statutory recourse to challenge a final order is a revision petition filed under the provisions governing revision of criminal judgments. The petition must allege a jurisdictional error, a material misapprehension of law, or a gross miscarriage of justice arising from the lower court’s handling of evidence. In the present case, the accused contend that the Sessions Court erred in admitting key pieces of evidence – the identification parade, the seized firearms, and the footprint analysis – each of which they claim undermines the reliability of the conviction. The legal threshold for a revision is not a re‑evaluation of the merits per se, but a determination of whether the lower court committed a patent error of law or a procedural irregularity that rendered the judgment void or perverse. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226, may issue a writ of certiorari to quash the conviction if it finds that the trial court’s discretion was exercised in a manner that contravenes established legal principles. Practically, the filing of a revision petition places the matter before a higher judicial authority that can order a fresh trial, set aside the death sentence, or even acquit the accused if the evidentiary foundation is deemed fundamentally flawed. For the accused, engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who is adept at drafting revision petitions is essential, as the counsel must meticulously frame the allegations of error to satisfy the stringent standards of review. If the High Court accepts the petition, it may stay the execution of the death sentence, thereby providing immediate relief from custody while the substantive issues are examined.

Question: Can the alleged procedural defects in the identification parades – specifically the claim of pre‑showing and insufficient safeguards – be a ground for the High Court to quash the conviction in a revision petition, given that identification evidence is generally admissible if conducted in a regular manner?

Answer: The factual backdrop reveals that two identification parades were conducted in the district jail, during which a handful of eyewitnesses positively identified each accused, and that the defence alleges pre‑showing of the accused to the witnesses, thereby compromising the reliability of the identification. Under criminal evidence law, identification must be carried out without undue influence, and any suggestion of pre‑showing can render the identification unreliable. However, the standard for overturning a conviction on this ground is high; the court must be convinced that the identification was so tainted that it vitiated the entire evidential matrix. In a revision proceeding, the High Court is not a fact‑finding body but a reviewer of the lower court’s application of law. It will examine whether the trial judge correctly applied the principles governing identification evidence, including whether the procedural safeguards prescribed by law were observed. If the trial court’s record shows that the identification was conducted in the presence of the accused, that the witnesses were warned against undue influence, and that the identification was corroborated by other material, the High Court may deem the defect insufficient to merit quashing. Conversely, if the petition demonstrates that the accused were shown to the witnesses before the formal parade, that the witnesses were not blindfolded, or that the identification was obtained under coercion, the High Court may find a violation of due process. The practical implication for the accused is that a successful challenge could lead to the exclusion of the identification evidence, potentially collapsing the prosecution’s case and resulting in a quash of the conviction or an order for a retrial. For the prosecution, a finding of procedural irregularity would necessitate reliance on remaining evidence, such as the weapons and footprint analysis, to sustain the conviction. The role of lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court is pivotal in presenting forensic and testimonial evidence of the alleged pre‑showing, thereby influencing the High Court’s assessment of whether the identification evidence can be sustained.

Question: Does the prior acquittal of one accused on an arms charge bar the admission of the same firearms as evidence in the murder trial, and can this issue be raised effectively in a revision petition to obtain a quashing of the conviction?

Answer: The factual scenario indicates that one of the accused was previously acquitted of an offence under the Arms Act for possession of the revolver that was later recovered at the murder scene. The defence argues that the earlier acquittal creates a legal bar to the re‑use of the same physical objects as evidence in a separate murder proceeding. The principle of res judicata prevents re‑litigation of the same issue between the same parties, but it does not automatically preclude the admission of physical evidence that was part of a different charge, provided the evidence is relevant to the current offence. In the context of a revision petition, the accused can contend that the trial court erred in admitting the weapons because the prior acquittal established that the prosecution could not prove lawful possession, thereby casting doubt on the chain of custody and the relevance of the firearms to the murder. The High Court will examine whether the trial court correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel and whether the admission of the weapons violated the accused’s right to a fair trial. If the High Court finds that the prior acquittal created a substantive factual determination that the accused did not possess the weapons, it may deem the subsequent admission as impermissible, leading to a quash of the conviction. Practically, a successful challenge would strip the prosecution of a key piece of corroborative circumstantial evidence, potentially rendering the remaining evidence insufficient for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. For the prosecution, the implication would be the need to rely solely on eyewitness identification and footprint evidence, which may not meet the threshold for upholding a death sentence. The involvement of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, working in concert with lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, is crucial to articulate the legal nuances of res judicata and evidentiary admissibility, thereby shaping the High Court’s decision on whether the conviction should stand.

Question: To what extent does the scientific reliability of the footprint evidence satisfy the standards of admissibility, and can a challenge to this forensic evidence form a viable basis for the High Court to set aside the conviction in a revision petition?

Answer: The factual record shows that shoe‑sole impressions were collected from the crime scene, moulds were made, and a pair of shoes recovered from one accused’s residence were demonstrated to match those impressions. The defence disputes the scientific basis of this comparison, arguing that the methodology lacks rigorous validation and that the expert testimony was insufficiently scrutinised. Under the law of evidence, forensic evidence must meet the criteria of relevance, reliability, and admissibility, often assessed through the standards of scientific validity and peer acceptance. In a revision petition, the High Court reviews whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that did not satisfy these standards. If the petition establishes that the expert relied on outdated or untested techniques, that the chain of custody of the shoe‑sole impressions was broken, or that the trial court failed to conduct a proper voir dire on the expert’s qualifications, the High Court may deem the footprint evidence inadmissible. The practical effect of excluding this evidence could be profound, as the prosecution’s case heavily relies on the cumulative circumstantial matrix linking the accused to the crime scene. Without the footprint evidence, the remaining identification and weapon evidence may not suffice to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially if the identification is later found to be flawed. Consequently, the High Court could quash the conviction or order a fresh trial. For the accused, a successful challenge would also likely result in immediate relief from custody, as the death sentence could be stayed pending re‑evaluation. For the prosecution, the exclusion would necessitate a reassessment of the evidentiary strategy, possibly prompting a request for further investigation. The role of lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court is instrumental in presenting scientific literature, expert affidavits, and case law on forensic admissibility to persuade the High Court that the footprint evidence fails to meet the requisite legal standards.

Question: Under what circumstances can the convicted accused invoke the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a revision petition after the regular appeal on the merits has been exhausted, and why does the remedy lie specifically before that High Court?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused were convicted by the Sessions Court, the conviction was affirmed by the High Court on appeal and the Supreme Court declined special leave. At that stage the only statutory avenue left is a revision petition filed under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code that empower a High Court to examine the legality of an order passed by a subordinate criminal court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court possesses constitutional authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against a Sessions Court judgment that is alleged to be perverse, illegal or a gross misappreciation of evidence. Because the trial court and the appellate High Court are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petition must be presented there; no other forum has the power to revisit the final order once the appellate route is closed. The revision is not a re‑hear of the case on merits but a limited scrutiny of jurisdictional errors, procedural violations and material irregularities that could have affected the conviction. In the present facts the accused contend that the identification parade was tainted, the weapons were seized in contravention of the law and the scientific basis of the footprint analysis was unsound. These allegations raise questions of legality that a revision petition is designed to address. Moreover, the High Court can also consider an application for interim relief, such as release on bail, while the petition is pending. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will therefore structure the petition to demonstrate that the Sessions Court erred in admitting crucial evidence, that the appellate court failed to examine those errors, and that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is the appropriate forum to correct the miscarriage of justice that a factual defence alone cannot remedy at this stage.

Question: How can the accused obtain interim bail through the revision petition, and why does a simple factual defence no longer suffice to secure release from custody?

Answer: The procedural route begins with filing the revision petition, which must contain a specific prayer for interim bail pending determination of the petition. The petition is presented to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the bench will consider whether the detention is justified in view of the alleged procedural defects. The accused must demonstrate that the Sessions Court’s order is tainted by illegal admission of evidence, that the identification parade was not conducted in accordance with established safeguards and that the scientific credibility of the footprint evidence is doubtful. Because the conviction is final, the accused cannot rely merely on a factual defence that the prosecution’s case is weak; the factual defence was already considered and rejected by the trial judge. What is required now is a demonstration of a legal infirmity that renders the conviction unsafe, a ground that the High Court can entertain in a revision. The interim bail application is supported by the principle that a person should not be deprived of liberty when the legality of the conviction is under serious question. The court may grant bail if it is satisfied that the alleged errors are substantial enough to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction and that the accused is not a flight risk. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, familiar with bail jurisprudence, will draft the bail prayer, attach affidavits, and cite precedents where the High Court has released accused on similar grounds. The bail order, if granted, will relieve the immediate hardship of custody while the revision proceeds, thereby illustrating why a factual defence alone is insufficient; the remedy now hinges on procedural infirmities that only a High Court can rectify.

Question: Why might the accused seek the assistance of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to file a writ of certiorari challenging the Sessions Court’s judgment, and how does the alleged misconduct in the identification parade and weapon seizure support that approach?

Answer: The accused’s primary grievance is that the Sessions Court admitted evidence that was obtained in violation of procedural safeguards, namely the identification parade that was allegedly pre‑shown to witnesses and the seizure of firearms despite a prior acquittal on an arms charge. These allegations raise a question of jurisdictional error because the trial court is bound to exclude evidence obtained unlawfully. A writ of certiorari is the appropriate High Court remedy to quash an order that is illegal or perverse. Since the Punjab and Haryana High Court has the power to issue such a writ, the accused must engage a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who is adept at drafting writ petitions, framing the factual matrix, and articulating the legal basis for certiorari. The lawyer will argue that the identification parade failed to comply with the procedural safeguards required by law, rendering the eyewitness testimony unreliable, and that the weapon seizure contravened the principle that evidence obtained after an acquittal on a related charge may be inadmissible if the circumstances are identical. By highlighting these procedural lapses, the petition seeks to demonstrate that the Sessions Court acted beyond its jurisdiction, justifying the High Court’s intervention. The writ petition will also request that the High Court set aside the conviction and direct a fresh trial, thereby addressing the core defect that a factual defence cannot remedy after the conviction is final. The involvement of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court ensures that the petition is tailored to the High Court’s procedural preferences, increasing the likelihood of a favorable interim order and ultimately a substantive review of the conviction.

Question: What is the strategic advantage of coordinating counsel consisting of lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court and lawyers in Chandigarh High Court when pursuing a revision petition and possible collateral attacks, and how does this coordination affect the practical outcome for the accused?

Answer: The procedural landscape requires simultaneous attention to two distinct but interrelated fronts: the revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and any ancillary writ applications or bail petitions before the same court that may be handled by a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court. Coordinating counsel ensures that the legal arguments are consistent, that procedural deadlines are met, and that the High Court receives a unified narrative of the alleged errors. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court will focus on the revision petition, meticulously drafting the grounds that the Sessions Court erred in admitting the weapons, that the identification parade was flawed and that the scientific basis of the footprint evidence was unsound. They will also prepare the supporting affidavits and case law. Concurrently, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court will prepare any interim relief applications, such as bail or a stay of execution, and may file a separate writ of certiorari if the revision route appears insufficient. This dual representation prevents procedural fragmentation, avoids contradictory submissions and maximises the chance that the High Court will entertain both the substantive revision and the immediate relief. For the accused, this strategy translates into a higher probability of obtaining release from custody while the substantive challenge proceeds, and it creates a comprehensive record that can be used if the matter proceeds to a higher appellate forum. The coordinated effort also signals to the prosecution that the accused is prepared to exhaust all legal remedies, which may encourage settlement discussions or prompt the investigating agency to re‑examine the evidentiary basis of its case. In sum, the collaboration between lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court and lawyers in Chandigarh High Court leverages the full spectrum of High Court jurisdiction, thereby enhancing the practical prospects of overturning the conviction or securing interim relief.

Question: How should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court evaluate the risk that the weapons seized from the accused may be excluded as evidence because of the earlier acquittal on an arms charge, and what documentary and evidentiary material must be examined to support an argument for their admissibility?

Answer: The first step for a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is to obtain the complete docket of the earlier arms trial, including the acquittal order, the charge sheet, the forensic report on the firearms, and the statements of the investigating officers. These documents reveal whether the acquittal was based on a lack of proof of possession at the time of that specific offence or on a procedural defect that could also taint the later seizure. The lawyer must compare the factual matrix of the two cases: the earlier trial concerned unlawful possession under the Arms Act, while the present murder trial relies on the same firearms as circumstantial proof of participation in the homicide. If the acquittal rested on a finding that the accused did not have the weapons at the relevant time, the prosecution in the murder case must demonstrate a clear temporal distinction, showing that the weapons were recovered after the killings and that they were the very firearms used in the attack. The lawyer should also secure the chain‑of‑custody records for the rifle and revolver, the forensic ballistics comparison, and any photographs taken at the scene. By presenting an unbroken custody trail and expert testimony linking the weapons to the bullets recovered from the victims, the counsel can argue that the earlier acquittal does not invoke res judicata because the issue is not the ownership of the guns but their role as incriminating material in a separate offence. Moreover, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court should highlight precedent where courts have allowed the same physical object to be admitted in a different trial when the evidentiary purpose differs. The strategy includes filing a detailed annexure to the revision petition, attaching the forensic report, the custody log, and a comparative analysis of the two proceedings, thereby neutralising the defence’s claim of inadmissibility and reducing the risk of the High Court striking the weapon evidence.

Question: What procedural defects in the identification parades can be raised by a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, and how should the defence substantiate claims of pre‑showing or bias to obtain a quashing of the convictions?

Answer: A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must begin by securing the original parade records, the list of witnesses, the order of appearance, and any video or photographic material, if available. The defence should scrutinise whether the accused were presented in a manner that allowed witnesses to see distinctive features such as clothing, tattoos, or the accused’s gait before the formal identification, which would constitute pre‑showing. The counsel must also examine the composition of the witness panel for any relationship with the police or the complainant, as such connections could indicate bias. Testimony of the parade officials regarding the lighting, distance, and the presence of any suggestive remarks is crucial. The lawyer should request the production of the police log that records the time taken for each witness to identify the accused, looking for inconsistencies or unusually rapid identifications that may suggest coaching. Additionally, the defence can file an application for a forensic re‑enactment of the parade to demonstrate that the conditions were not conducive to reliable identification. By juxtaposing the parade protocol with the statutory safeguards prescribed for identification procedures, the lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can argue that the trial court erred in admitting the parade testimony without a proper hearing on its admissibility. The petition should also cite comparative case law where courts have set aside convictions on the ground of tainted identification, emphasizing that the credibility of eyewitnesses is fragile and that any procedural lapse undermines the certainty required for a death sentence. This thorough documentary foundation, coupled with expert commentary on identification psychology, equips the defence to seek a quashing of the convictions on the basis of procedural defect.

Question: In what ways can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court challenge the scientific reliability of the footprint evidence, and what expert testimony or ancillary documents are essential to undermine the prosecution’s reliance on this circumstantial proof?

Answer: To contest the footprint evidence, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must first obtain the original moulds, the photographs of the impressions at the crime scene, and the report of the forensic expert who performed the comparison. The defence should engage an independent forensic podiatrist or a specialist in footwear impression analysis to review the methodology used, focusing on whether the comparison adhered to accepted standards such as the requirement for a sufficient number of distinctive features, the condition of the prints, and the possibility of contamination. The expert can prepare a detailed report highlighting any deficiencies, such as the reliance on a single tread pattern, the lack of measurement of depth, or the failure to consider the variability of shoe wear. Additionally, the defence should request the laboratory’s accreditation certificates and the qualifications of the original examiner to assess credibility. By presenting a contrasting expert opinion that the scientific basis for linking the accused’s shoes to the crime‑scene prints is tenuous, the lawyer can argue that the evidence does not meet the threshold of reliability required for admissibility. The petition should also reference any procedural lapses, such as the absence of a blind comparison or the failure to preserve the original prints, which further erode probative value. By assembling these documents and expert analyses, the counsel can persuade the High Court that the footprint evidence is speculative and that its inclusion in the conviction violates the principle that only scientifically sound evidence may be relied upon, thereby creating a viable ground for quashing the judgment.

Question: What strategic considerations should a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court weigh when drafting the revision petition to secure both immediate bail and a potential fresh trial, given the finality of the death sentence and the limited avenues of appeal?

Answer: The lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must balance two parallel objectives: securing the release of the accused from custody pending the outcome of the revision petition, and laying the groundwork for a fresh trial if the High Court finds merit in the objections. The first tactical move is to file an urgent application for interim bail, attaching a concise memorandum that outlines the procedural irregularities, the risk of irreversible harm if the death sentence is carried out, and the absence of any substantial evidence that cannot be re‑examined. The counsel should emphasize that the accused are already serving a sentence and that the High Court possesses the power under the writ jurisdiction to stay the execution pending its decision. Simultaneously, the revision petition must meticulously enumerate each ground of challenge—weapon admissibility, identification parade defects, and footprint reliability—backed by annexures of forensic reports, parade logs, and expert opinions. The lawyer should request that the High Court either quash the conviction and order a fresh trial or, alternatively, remit the matter to the Sessions Court for re‑consideration of the evidence, thereby preserving the accused’s right to a fair hearing. The petition should also invoke the principle that the death penalty demands the highest degree of certainty, and any doubt arising from procedural lapses warrants commutation. By structuring the relief as both a stay of execution and a directive for a new trial, the lawyer in Chandigarh High Court maximises the chance of immediate liberty while keeping the door open for a substantive re‑evaluation of the case.

Question: How can lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court assess the potential impact of the accused’s prior flight from the scene on the revision petition, and what arguments can be made to mitigate the adverse inference drawn by the trial court?

Answer: The first step for lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court is to obtain the police reports detailing the circumstances of the accused’s evasion, the timeline of their apprehension, and any statements made by the accused at the time of arrest. The defence should examine whether the flight was motivated by fear of wrongful accusation, lack of legal counsel, or a genuine belief of innocence, rather than an admission of guilt. By securing affidavits from family members, community witnesses, or the accused themselves, the counsel can present a narrative that the flight was a panicked response to an unexpected and violent incident, not a conscious attempt to evade justice. The petition should argue that the trial court’s reliance on the flight as a substantive incriminating factor violates the principle that mere escape, without corroborating evidence of guilt, cannot be the sole basis for a conviction, especially in capital cases. Moreover, the lawyers can cite jurisprudence where courts have held that the inference of guilt from flight must be tempered by the totality of evidence and that it is insufficient where other critical evidence is questionable. By contextualising the flight within the broader procedural defects—tainted identification and unreliable forensic evidence—the defence can persuade the High Court that the adverse inference is outweighed by reasonable doubt. The petition should request that the High Court either disregard the flight as a decisive factor or, at the very least, direct the lower court to re‑evaluate its weight in light of the identified evidentiary flaws, thereby mitigating its impact on the final judgment.