Can the admission of a dying declaration recorded in a different language be set aside in a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

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

Suppose a person is found gravely injured after a violent altercation in a densely populated market area and, while on the brink of death, gives a statement to a medical officer describing the identity of the assailants and the circumstances that led to the fatal injuries. The statement is later transcribed by a police constable in a language different from the one spoken by the dying person, because that language is the official medium used by the local police for documentation. The deceased later succumbs to the injuries, and the investigating agency files an FIR alleging murder and conspiracy, relying heavily on the dying declaration as the cornerstone of its case.

The accused, who was present at the scene but claims to have been merely a by‑stander, is arrested and produced before the magistrate. During the trial, the prosecution argues that the dying declaration is admissible under the Evidence Act, emphasizing its voluntariness and the corroborative testimony of an eyewitness who saw the accused near the victim at the time of the assault. The defence, however, contends that the constable’s presence during the recording of the statement amounted to prompting, that the translation into the official language introduced inaccuracies, and that the declaration contains narrative material beyond the scope of a pure dying declaration. The trial court, persuaded by the prosecution, admits the statement, convicts the accused, and imposes a rigorous sentence.

Following the conviction, the accused seeks to overturn the judgment, asserting that the trial court erred in admitting the dying declaration without proper scrutiny of its voluntariness and linguistic fidelity. The legal problem, therefore, is whether the High Court can entertain a revision petition challenging the trial court’s order of admission and conviction, given that the alleged procedural irregularities pertain to the core evidentiary foundation of the case. An ordinary factual defence at the trial stage—such as denying participation in the assault—does not address the procedural defect concerning the admissibility of the dying declaration, which, if invalidated, would dismantle the prosecution’s case.

Because the conviction rests on a contested piece of evidence, the appropriate remedy is a criminal revision petition filed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This proceeding enables the accused to seek a judicial review of the lower court’s order on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles governing dying declarations. The revision petition must specifically request the High Court to set aside the trial court’s order of admission, quash the conviction, and direct the release of the accused from custody.

In preparing the revision, the accused engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who meticulously analyses the statutory requirements for a dying declaration, highlighting that the presence of a police officer during the recording can constitute an inducement, and that the translation into a language not spoken by the declarant may compromise the statement’s authenticity. The counsel also cites precedents where High Courts have intervened to quash convictions on similar evidentiary grounds, emphasizing the need for the declaration to be an unaided, voluntary narration of the cause of death.

The petition further argues that the trial court failed to apply the correct test of voluntariness, neglecting to consider whether the medical officer’s certification of fitness to speak was obtained independently of police influence. Moreover, the defence points out that the translation process introduced ambiguities, as the official language used by the constable differed from the vernacular spoken by the dying person, thereby violating the principle that a dying declaration must accurately reflect the declarant’s words. By raising these points, the revision seeks to demonstrate that the admission of the declaration was a material error warranting interference.

To strengthen the case, the accused’s team also engages a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who prepares a comprehensive affidavit from the eyewitness, asserting that the identification of the accused was based on a fleeting glimpse and that the testimony lacks the reliability required to corroborate the dying declaration. This affidavit is submitted as part of the revision to show that the prosecution’s reliance on the declaration, without robust corroboration, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

In addition, the revision petition is supported by a senior advocate who is a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court and who drafts a detailed legal memorandum outlining the statutory framework under the Evidence Act, particularly the provisions governing dying declarations, and the procedural safeguards mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code. The memorandum underscores that the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can issue a writ of certiorari to quash the lower court’s order if it is found to be perverse or illegal.

The filing of the revision is strategically timed to coincide with the expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal, ensuring that the accused preserves his right to challenge the conviction. The petition also requests interim relief, seeking the release of the accused on bail pending the determination of the revision, arguing that continued detention would be unjust in light of the serious doubts cast on the evidentiary foundation of the conviction.

Throughout the proceedings, the accused is represented by a team of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court who coordinate with the counsel before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to present a unified argument. They emphasize that the procedural defect—namely, the improper admission of the dying declaration—cannot be remedied by a simple factual rebuttal at the trial level and that the High Court is the appropriate forum to address such a fundamental error.

The revision petition, once filed, triggers the High Court’s jurisdiction to examine the record of the trial court, the FIR, the police report, and the transcription of the dying declaration. The court may order a re‑examination of the medical officer’s certification, request the original language notes of the declaration, and scrutinize the constable’s notes for any indication of prompting. If the High Court is convinced that the declaration was not a pure, unaided statement, it can set aside the trial court’s order, quash the conviction, and direct the release of the accused.

Thus, the procedural solution to the legal problem lies in invoking the revisionary jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a route that directly addresses the evidentiary flaw at the heart of the conviction. By filing a criminal revision petition, the accused seeks to overturn the trial court’s erroneous admission of the dying declaration, secure his liberty, and restore the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Question: Whether the dying declaration recorded by the police constable in a language different from that spoken by the declarant can be admitted as reliable evidence in the trial, given the presence of the constable and the translation process?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the victim, gravely injured in a market altercation, gave a statement to a medical officer identifying his assailants. The statement was subsequently transcribed by a police constable in the official language of the police department, a language the victim did not speak. The defence argues that the constable’s presence amounted to prompting and that the translation introduced inaccuracies, thereby compromising the voluntariness and authenticity required of a dying declaration. The prosecution, on the other hand, maintains that the medical officer’s certification of fitness to speak and the absence of any overt coercion render the declaration voluntary, and that the translation merely reflects a routine administrative practice. The legal issue therefore pivots on whether the procedural irregularities—police presence and linguistic conversion—suffice to render the declaration inadmissible. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would examine the jurisprudential requirement that a dying declaration be an unaided narration of the cause of death, free from inducement. The presence of a police officer can be deemed an inducement if the officer asks leading questions or influences the content; however, if the officer merely records the words spoken by the declarant without interference, the declaration may survive scrutiny. The translation issue is assessed by determining whether the content of the original statement was accurately captured in the official language. Courts have held that a language discrepancy does not per se invalidate a declaration, provided the translation is faithful. In the present case, the defence must demonstrate that the constable’s notes contain deviations or that the translation altered material facts. The prosecution must show that the medical officer’s certification was obtained independently and that the constable acted as a neutral recorder. If the High Court, after reviewing the original notes and the medical officer’s report, finds that the declaration was not a pure, unaided statement, it may quash its admission, which would undercut the prosecution’s case. Conversely, if the court is persuaded that the procedural steps complied with the statutory safeguards, the declaration will remain admissible, supporting the conviction. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would therefore focus on the evidentiary audit of the transcription process, the role of the constable, and the fidelity of the translation to determine the admissibility of this pivotal piece of evidence.

Question: Does the Punjab and Haryana High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a criminal revision petition challenging the trial court’s order of admission of the dying declaration and the consequent conviction?

Answer: The procedural history indicates that the accused was convicted by the trial court after the admission of the dying declaration and that the conviction rests on that evidentiary foundation. The accused has filed a criminal revision petition under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking to set aside the trial court’s order of admission and to quash the conviction. The legal question is whether the High Court can exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in a criminal matter where the alleged error pertains to the admissibility of evidence rather than a direct error of law on the merits. Under the constitutional scheme, a High Court may entertain a revision petition when a subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction or in violation of law, and when the order is not appealable by ordinary appellate routes. In this scenario, the accused argues that the trial court erred in admitting the dying declaration without proper scrutiny of its voluntariness and linguistic fidelity, a defect that, if established, would render the conviction unsustainable. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the trial court’s order is amenable to revision because the admission of evidence is a jurisdictional act; a court must ensure that the evidentiary standards prescribed by law are met before it can form a conviction. The High Court’s power to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution enables it to examine whether the lower court’s decision was perverse or illegal. The prosecution may counter that the matter is appealable and that the revision route is inappropriate, but the defence can point out that the statutory period for filing an appeal has lapsed, making revision the only viable remedy. Moreover, the High Court’s jurisdiction extends to correcting procedural irregularities that affect the fairness of the trial. If the High Court finds that the trial court failed to apply the correct test of voluntariness and ignored the translation defect, it can set aside the admission, quash the conviction, and order the release of the accused. Thus, the revision petition is within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasize the necessity of judicial review to safeguard the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Question: What standard of review will the High Court apply when assessing the trial court’s decision to admit the dying declaration, and how does this affect the likelihood of overturning the conviction?

Answer: The High Court’s review of a lower court’s evidentiary rulings is governed by the principle that such decisions are subject to a standard of reasonableness and not a de novo re‑appraisal of the facts. In the present case, the trial court admitted the dying declaration after finding it voluntary and accurate, a determination that involves assessing the credibility of the declarant and the circumstances of the recording. The accused challenges this finding, asserting that the presence of the constable and the translation rendered the declaration involuntary and unreliable. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will argue that the High Court must examine whether the trial court’s decision was perverse, i.e., whether no reasonable mind could have arrived at the same conclusion based on the material before it. The court will scrutinize the record for evidence of prompting, the medical officer’s certification, and the fidelity of the translation. If the High Court discovers that the trial court ignored material contradictions or failed to consider the impact of the police officer’s involvement, it may deem the admission erroneous. Conversely, the prosecution will contend that the trial court exercised its discretion within the permissible bounds and that any error, if present, is not of a magnitude that warrants overturning the conviction. The standard of review thus hinges on whether the trial court’s decision was founded on a substantial evidentiary basis or was a gross misapprehension of the law. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will emphasize that the High Court’s intervention is justified only when the admission of evidence is illegal or contrary to established legal principles, not merely because the appellate party disagrees with the assessment. If the High Court concludes that the trial court’s admission was legally sound, the conviction will stand; however, if it finds that the procedural safeguards were breached, it can set aside the admission, which would inevitably lead to the quashing of the conviction. The outcome therefore depends on the High Court’s application of the reasonableness standard to the trial court’s evidentiary determination.

Question: Can the accused obtain interim bail pending the disposition of the revision petition, and what factors will the High Court consider in deciding whether to grant such relief?

Answer: The accused remains in custody following the conviction, and the revision petition seeks not only the quashing of the conviction but also interim relief in the form of bail. The legal framework permits a High Court to grant bail pending the hearing of a revision petition if it is satisfied that the accused is not a flight risk, that the allegations are not of a serious nature, and that the continuation of custody would cause undue hardship. In this scenario, the core of the prosecution’s case rests on the dying declaration, which the defence alleges is infirm. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the existence of a substantial question regarding the admissibility of the pivotal evidence creates a reasonable doubt about the safety of the conviction, thereby justifying bail. The court will also weigh the nature of the alleged offence, the length of the sentence already imposed, and the conduct of the accused while in custody. The prosecution may contend that the seriousness of the murder charge and the rigorous sentence warrant continued detention to ensure the accused’s presence at trial. However, the defence can point out that the conviction is under serious challenge and that the accused has cooperated with the investigative agency, reducing the risk of absconding. The High Court will also consider whether the accused has sufficient sureties and whether the bail would prejudice the prosecution’s case. If the court is persuaded that the procedural defect concerning the dying declaration casts a shadow over the conviction’s validity, it may grant bail as an equitable measure. Conversely, if the court deems that the conviction, despite the alleged irregularity, is likely to be upheld, it may deny bail. Thus, the decision hinges on the balance between the gravity of the alleged offence and the merit of the procedural challenge, with a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasizing the need for a nuanced assessment of risk and fairness.

Question: How does the lack of robust corroboration for the dying declaration affect the High Court’s assessment of the conviction’s reliability, and can the absence of strong corroborative evidence be a ground for quashing the conviction?

Answer: The trial court’s conviction was heavily reliant on the dying declaration, with the prosecution presenting an eyewitness who claimed to have seen the accused near the victim at the time of the assault. The defence, however, argues that the eyewitness testimony is tenuous, describing the identification as based on a fleeting glimpse, and that the declaration itself contains narrative material beyond the core facts. While the law does not mandate corroboration for a dying declaration, the presence of reliable corroborative evidence enhances its probative value. In this case, the defence seeks to demonstrate that the corroboration is insufficient to sustain the conviction. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will highlight that the High Court must evaluate whether the conviction rests on a foundation that meets the standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of strong corroboration does not automatically invalidate a dying declaration, but if the declaration is itself questionable due to procedural defects, the lack of corroborative support becomes more consequential. The High Court will examine the credibility of the eyewitness, the consistency of his account, and any forensic or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. If the court finds that the eyewitness testimony is unreliable and that no other independent evidence corroborates the declaration, it may conclude that the conviction is unsafe. Conversely, if the court determines that the eyewitness, despite being a single source, provides sufficient corroboration to satisfy the evidentiary threshold, the conviction may be upheld. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the combination of a potentially infirm dying declaration and weak corroboration creates a reasonable doubt that warrants quashing the conviction. The High Court’s assessment will therefore hinge on the overall reliability of the evidentiary matrix, and the lack of robust corroboration can indeed serve as a ground for setting aside the conviction if it undermines the certainty required for a criminal judgment.

Question: Why is a criminal revision petition the proper avenue for challenging the trial court’s admission of the dying declaration rather than a regular appeal, and how does the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court support this choice?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the conviction rests on a single piece of evidence – the dying declaration – whose admissibility was contested on grounds of voluntariness and linguistic fidelity. A regular appeal ordinarily reviews errors of law or fact after a final judgment, but the accused has already exhausted the ordinary appellate route because the statutory period for filing an appeal has lapsed. The revision remedy, however, is expressly designed to address jurisdictional defects, illegal orders, or grave procedural irregularities that occurred in the lower court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court possesses the authority to entertain a criminal revision petition under the procedural code because it is the apex judicial forum for the state and can examine whether the trial court acted beyond its jurisdiction by admitting evidence that did not satisfy the legal requirements for a dying declaration. The High Court’s power to issue a writ of certiorari enables it to set aside the lower court’s order if it is found to be perverse or illegal. Moreover, the revision does not require the parties to re‑litigate the entire case; it focuses solely on the specific defect – the admission of the declaration – thereby providing a targeted and efficient mechanism for redress. By filing the petition, the accused can ask the High Court to quash the conviction, direct the release from custody, and possibly order a fresh trial. The procedural posture of the case, the exhaustion of ordinary appeal, and the nature of the alleged error collectively make the revision the appropriate and legally sanctioned route before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is drafted in compliance with the court’s procedural rules and that the arguments are framed to highlight the jurisdictional overreach of the trial court.

Question: How does retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court help the accused obtain interim bail while the revision petition is pending, and what procedural safeguards are available to protect the accused’s liberty?

Answer: After the conviction, the accused remains in custody and faces the risk of continued detention while the revision is being considered. The procedural framework allows the accused to apply for interim bail on the ground that the conviction is under challenge and that the evidentiary foundation is doubtful. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can file an application for bail before the appropriate court, citing the pending revision as a material circumstance that warrants release. The application must demonstrate that the accused is not a flight risk, that the allegations are under serious dispute, and that the accused will cooperate with the investigating agency. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers, can grant bail pending the outcome of the revision if it is satisfied that the procedural defect – the improper admission of the dying declaration – creates a reasonable doubt about the safety of the conviction. The lawyer can also request that the bail be conditioned on surrender of passport, regular reporting to the police, and surety, thereby addressing any concerns of the court. By securing interim bail, the accused is relieved from the hardships of incarceration, can better assist his counsel in preparing the revision, and can attend to personal matters. The procedural safeguard of bail pending revision underscores the principle that liberty should not be curtailed when a substantial legal error is alleged. The involvement of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court ensures that the bail application is timely, that the correct jurisdictional forum is approached, and that the arguments align with the High Court’s precedents on bail in revision matters.

Question: What specific procedural steps must the accused follow to prove that the dying declaration was improperly admitted, and how will the Punjab and Haryana High Court scrutinise the translation and recording process?

Answer: The accused must first gather the original medical certificate confirming fitness to speak, the transcription of the declaration, the constable’s notes, and any audio or video record if available. The revision petition should attach these documents as annexures and set out a factual chronology that highlights the presence of the police officer during the recording, the absence of an independent medical officer, and the fact that the declaration was transcribed in a language different from the one spoken by the declarant. The petition must request that the High Court order the production of the original language notes, the translation sheet, and the constable’s field diary to assess whether any prompting occurred. The court will then examine whether the translation faithfully reflects the declarant’s words, whether the constable’s presence could have influenced the statement, and whether the medical officer’s certification was obtained without police interference. The accused may also seek to depose the constable and the medical officer as witnesses before the High Court to establish the circumstances of recording. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can direct the investigating agency to produce the original notes, may appoint a linguistic expert to compare the original utterance with the translated version, and can scrutinise the procedural compliance with the evidentiary requirements for a dying declaration. By demonstrating that the translation introduced ambiguities and that the presence of the police officer amounted to inducement, the accused aims to show that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will craft the petition to emphasise these procedural lapses and to request appropriate relief such as quashing the conviction and ordering a fresh trial.

Question: Why is a simple factual defence at trial insufficient to overturn the conviction, and why must the accused rely on a writ of certiorari in the revision to address the core evidentiary defect?

Answer: At trial the accused attempted to deny participation in the assault, which is a factual defence that challenges the prosecution’s narrative. However, the conviction was based primarily on the dying declaration, a piece of evidence that the trial court admitted as conclusive proof of the accused’s involvement. A factual denial does not contest the legal validity of the declaration; it merely asserts an alternative version of events. The core problem is that the declaration may have been admitted in violation of the legal standards governing such statements – namely, the requirement of voluntariness, unaided narration, and accurate translation. Because the defect lies in the admissibility of the evidence rather than in the factual matrix, a factual defence cannot overturn the judgment. The appropriate remedy is a writ of certiorari, which the High Court can issue in a revision proceeding to review the legality of the lower court’s order. The writ allows the High Court to examine whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction, whether it complied with the procedural safeguards for dying declarations, and whether the admission was perverse. By invoking certiorari, the accused seeks to have the conviction set aside on the ground that the evidentiary foundation is unsound, rather than merely arguing that the facts do not support guilt. This approach directly attacks the procedural flaw that underpins the conviction. The involvement of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can assist in framing the writ petition, ensuring that the relief sought – quashing of the conviction and release from custody – is clearly articulated and supported by the procedural deficiencies identified. Only through this higher judicial scrutiny can the accused hope to overturn the judgment that rests on a contested dying declaration.

Question: Does the presence of the police constable during the recording of the dying declaration and the subsequent translation into an official language create a fatal defect that a revision petition can successfully exploit?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the victim, while gravely injured, gave a statement to a medical officer in his native tongue. A police constable, acting as the official scribe, later transcribed the declaration into the language used for police documentation, a language the victim did not speak. The prosecution’s case hinges on this declaration, asserting its voluntariness and authenticity. The legal problem therefore centers on whether the procedural safeguards required for a dying declaration were breached. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must first obtain the original handwritten notes, the medical officer’s fitness certificate, and any audio‑visual record, if existent, to assess whether the constable’s presence amounted to prompting or inducement. The jurisprudence demands that a dying declaration be an unaided narration; any suggestion that the police officer asked leading questions, clarified meanings, or altered wording can render the statement inadmissible. Moreover, the translation must be a faithful rendering; any discrepancy between the vernacular and the official version can raise doubts about the statement’s reliability. In the revision, the accused can argue that the trial court failed to apply the correct test of voluntariness, overlooking the possibility of police influence and linguistic distortion. The strategic advantage lies in highlighting that the declaration was not recorded contemporaneously in the victim’s own language, violating the principle that the declaration must reflect the exact words spoken. If the High Court is persuaded that the translation introduced material ambiguities, it may deem the declaration inadmissible, thereby striking the core of the prosecution’s case. This approach also opens the door to a broader challenge of the evidentiary foundation, potentially leading to quashing of the conviction and release of the accused from custody.

Question: How does the tenuous nature of the eyewitness identification affect the overall strength of the prosecution’s case, and what evidential strategies can be employed to undermine it?

Answer: The prosecution relies on an eyewitness who claims to have seen the accused near the victim at the critical moment, yet the testimony is described as a fleeting glimpse amidst a chaotic market scuffle. The legal problem is whether this identification meets the threshold of reliability required to corroborate the dying declaration. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court must scrutinize the eyewitness’s affidavit, focusing on the conditions of observation, lighting, distance, and the stress of the incident. They should also examine any inconsistencies between the eyewitness’s statement and the trial record, as well as the absence of contemporaneous notes or a police sketch. The strategic line of attack involves demonstrating that the identification is speculative, lacking the certainty needed to support a conviction. By filing a detailed memorandum, the defence can argue that the eyewitness’s perception was impaired, that the accused was merely a by‑stander, and that the prosecution failed to present any independent forensic or material evidence linking the accused to the assault. The defence may also request the High Court to order a re‑examination of the eyewitness under oath, exposing any contradictions or suggestibility. Highlighting the lack of corroborative physical evidence—such as blood stains, weapons, or CCTV footage—further weakens the prosecution’s narrative. If the court is convinced that the identification is unreliable, the High Court may deem the corroboration insufficient, thereby undermining the admissibility of the dying declaration which, while not requiring corroboration, gains probative value from solid supporting evidence. This approach not only attacks the credibility of the eyewitness but also creates reasonable doubt about the accused’s participation, strengthening the case for quashing the conviction.

Question: What are the prospects for obtaining bail or other interim relief while the revision petition is pending, and how should the defence structure its application?

Answer: The accused remains in custody following conviction, and the revision petition challenges the core evidentiary basis of that conviction. The legal problem is whether the High Court will grant bail pending determination of the revision, considering the seriousness of the alleged offence and the risk of the accused absconding. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must first establish that the conviction rests on a contested dying declaration, which the revision seeks to invalidate. This creates a strong argument that the conviction is not yet final and that the accused’s liberty should not be unduly curtailed. The bail application should emphasize the accused’s health, the lack of a flight risk—supported by the accused’s stable residence and family ties—and the absence of any prior criminal record. Moreover, the defence can argue that continued detention would amount to punitive action before the High Court has had an opportunity to examine the procedural defects. The application must attach the revision petition, a copy of the FIR, and any medical reports indicating the accused’s condition, thereby demonstrating that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of release. The strategic filing should request a direction for personal bond with sureties, rather than a cash bail, to address any concerns about flight. If the court is persuaded that the conviction is vulnerable due to evidentiary infirmities, it is likely to grant interim relief, allowing the accused to remain out of custody while the revision proceeds. This not only safeguards the accused’s personal liberty but also preserves the integrity of the judicial process by preventing irreversible consequences before the High Court’s final determination.

Question: Which procedural irregularities in the FIR and the investigative process can be highlighted to erode the prosecution’s case, and what documentation should the defence procure?

Answer: The FIR was lodged on the basis of the dying declaration and the eyewitness account, yet it may suffer from deficiencies such as failure to record the exact words spoken by the victim, omission of the medical officer’s certification, and lack of a contemporaneous note of the constable’s questioning. The legal problem is to demonstrate that the investigating agency did not comply with the procedural safeguards required for a reliable dying declaration. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court should request the original FIR, the police diary, and any audio recordings of the statement, if any, to verify whether the declaration was captured verbatim. They must also examine the police report for any indication of leading questions or coercive tactics. The defence can argue that the FIR’s narrative reflects the prosecution’s theory rather than the victim’s own words, thereby compromising its evidentiary value. Additionally, the investigation may have neglected to collect forensic evidence—such as weapon recovery, blood pattern analysis, or CCTV footage—that could substantiate the alleged assault. The defence should file a petition for production of all investigation files, including the constable’s field notes, the medical officer’s report, and any forensic reports. Highlighting the absence of a proper chain of custody for the declaration and any gaps in the investigative timeline can persuade the High Court that the prosecution’s case is built on a shaky foundation. By meticulously documenting these procedural lapses, the defence creates a compelling narrative that the trial court erred in admitting the declaration without due scrutiny, thereby justifying the revision’s request to quash the conviction and secure the accused’s release.