Can a post mortem thumb impression on a dying declaration render it inadmissible and justify a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

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

Suppose a person is arrested after a violent altercation in a market area and is subsequently charged with murder under the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution’s case resting primarily on a dying declaration recorded by a police officer shortly before the victim’s death, together with a post‑mortem thumb‑impression affixed to the statement.

The accused, who surrendered to the police within minutes of the incident, is tried before a Sessions Court. The trial court accepts the dying declaration as complete and categoric, despite the fact that the thumb‑impression was obtained after the victim had already expired. The court also relies on a knife recovered from a nearby alley, a purchase receipt linking the accused to the weapon, and a minor injury on the accused’s thumb that the prosecution argues is consistent with the alleged assault. On the basis of this evidence, the court convicts the accused of murder and imposes a term of rigorous imprisonment.

During the appeal before the High Court, the accused’s counsel argues that the dying declaration should be excluded because the thumb‑impression was taken post‑mortem, rendering the statement incomplete and vulnerable to tampering. The counsel further contends that, even if the declaration were admissible, the prosecution has failed to provide any independent corroboration of the accusation, a requirement that the High Court has recognized in earlier judgments where the dying declaration is not categorically incriminating.

The High Court, however, upholds the conviction, holding that the declaration was complete, that the thumb‑impression does not affect its reliability, and that corroboration is unnecessary where the statement directly names the accused. The court also finds that the physical evidence of the knife and the purchase receipt sufficiently corroborate the prosecution’s case.

Faced with this adverse judgment, the accused cannot simply rely on a factual defence at the trial level, because the conviction has already been affirmed on the basis of evidentiary rulings that were not fully contested. The legal problem therefore shifts from disputing the facts of the case to challenging the procedural correctness of the High Court’s decision, specifically the admissibility of the dying declaration and the adequacy of the corroboration requirement.

To address this procedural flaw, the accused must seek a higher remedy that allows a fresh examination of the legal principles applied by the High Court. The appropriate route is a revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction to examine whether the lower court exercised jurisdiction correctly and whether the legal standards governing dying declarations were properly applied.

The revision petition asks the Punjab and Haryana High Court to set aside the conviction on the ground that the dying declaration, as admitted, fails the completeness test because the post‑mortem thumb‑impression compromises its authenticity, and that the lack of independent corroboration renders the conviction unsafe. The petition also requests that the court quash the sentence and direct a re‑trial, or alternatively, that it be remanded for reconsideration of the evidentiary issues.

Because the matter involves a question of law—namely, the admissibility of a dying declaration with a post‑mortem thumb‑impression—and not merely a dispute over factual findings, a revision is the correct procedural instrument. A revision allows the Punjab and Haryana High Court to scrutinise the legal reasoning of the lower court without re‑trying the entire case, thereby providing a focused remedy for the procedural error.

In preparing the revision, the accused engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who drafts a detailed petition outlining the statutory framework of the Indian Evidence Act, the jurisprudence on dying declarations, and the specific procedural defect. The counsel cites precedents where courts have held that a dying declaration must be both complete and free from post‑mortem alterations, emphasizing that the thumb‑impression obtained after death introduces a material doubt that cannot be ignored.

The petition also references the principle that a categoric accusation alone does not dispense with the need for corroboration when the circumstances surrounding the declaration raise doubts about its reliability. By highlighting these legal standards, the petition seeks to demonstrate that the High Court’s reliance on the declaration was erroneous.

To strengthen the case, the accused’s counsel, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, also prepares an annex of expert opinions on forensic document examination, showing that post‑mortem impressions can be susceptible to manipulation. Although the expert testimony is not introduced at the trial stage, it is admissible in the revision to illustrate the potential for unreliability, thereby supporting the argument that the declaration should have been excluded.

The revision petition, once filed, triggers the jurisdictional review powers of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court may either entertain the petition and set aside the conviction, or dismiss it if it finds that the legal principles were correctly applied. In either event, the revision provides a procedural avenue that was unavailable at the trial or appellate stages, because those forums are limited to re‑examining factual findings rather than revisiting the legal standards governing evidence.

Thus, the specific remedy that naturally follows from the legal problem is a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the conviction on the ground of inadmissible dying declaration and lack of corroboration. This remedy aligns with the procedural posture of the original case, where the conviction was affirmed on evidentiary rulings, and it offers the accused a chance to obtain relief that a simple factual defence could not achieve.

In practice, the success of such a revision depends on the High Court’s willingness to re‑evaluate the admissibility criteria and to consider expert evidence on the reliability of post‑mortem thumb‑impressions. If the court finds merit in the arguments, it may set aside the conviction, remit the matter for a fresh trial, or direct the prosecution to re‑file the case with proper evidentiary support. Either outcome would rectify the procedural injustice that arose from the earlier acceptance of a potentially compromised dying declaration.

Question: Does the post‑mortem thumb‑impression attached to the dying declaration render the statement incomplete and therefore inadmissible as evidence of the accused’s guilt?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the victim uttered a full, unambiguous accusation naming the accused moments before death, and that the police officer recorded this oral statement in writing while the victim was still alive. The thumb‑impression, however, was obtained after the victim had expired, a procedural step that raises the question of whether the document remained a “complete” declaration under the law of evidence. A “complete” dying declaration must contain everything the declarant intended to say before death intervened; the post‑mortem impression does not add substantive content, but it does affect the document’s integrity. Courts have examined whether a post‑mortem impression introduces a risk of tampering or alteration, thereby compromising the reliability of the statement. In the present case, the prosecution argues that the impression merely authenticates the written record, while the defence contends that any alteration after death defeats the statutory requirement of completeness. The accused’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, would likely emphasize that the thumb‑impression was taken when the victim could no longer verify its accuracy, creating a material doubt that the High Court must resolve. The High Court, in reviewing the evidentiary ruling, will weigh expert forensic opinions on the susceptibility of post‑mortem impressions to manipulation against the principle that the core oral statement was already captured. If the court finds that the impression undermines the declaration’s authenticity, it may deem the entire document inadmissible, necessitating a fresh assessment of the remaining evidence. Conversely, if the court holds that the impression does not affect the substantive content, the declaration will stand, and the conviction may be upheld. The outcome hinges on the balance between procedural safeguards and the need to preserve reliable testimony, a balance that the reviewing court must strike in accordance with established jurisprudence on dying declarations.

Question: When a dying declaration is categoric but its reliability is questioned, is independent corroboration still required to sustain a conviction?

Answer: The accused was convicted largely on the basis of a categoric dying declaration that directly named him as the assailant. The prosecution further relied on the knife, purchase receipt, and a thumb injury as supporting material. The defence argues that, despite the declaration’s categoricity, the presence of doubts—particularly concerning the post‑mortem thumb‑impression—creates a scenario where corroboration becomes indispensable. Legal doctrine distinguishes between a “complete and categoric” declaration, which may be sufficient on its own, and an “incomplete or suspect” declaration, which demands corroboration. In this matter, the defence’s lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will likely assert that the procedural flaw casts doubt on the declaration’s completeness, thereby triggering the need for independent corroboration. The prosecution, on the other hand, maintains that the physical evidence—knife recovered from a nearby alley, receipt linking the accused to the weapon, and the thumb injury—constitutes sufficient corroboration, even if the declaration were deemed admissible. The High Court’s task is to determine whether the corroborative material is truly independent or merely circumstantial reinforcement of the same narrative. If the court concludes that the physical evidence is directly derived from the same chain of events that produced the dying declaration, it may deem it insufficient as independent corroboration. Conversely, if the court finds that the knife and receipt are autonomous pieces of evidence, it may uphold the conviction without requiring additional proof. The decision will hinge on the standard applied by the court in assessing the necessity of corroboration when a dying declaration’s reliability is compromised, a standard that has evolved through case law and is central to ensuring that convictions rest on robust, untainted evidence.

Question: Are the knife, purchase receipt, and the accused’s thumb injury sufficient to independently corroborate the dying declaration and satisfy the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Answer: The prosecution’s evidentiary portfolio includes a knife recovered from a nearby alley, a receipt showing the accused purchased the knife the day before the incident, and a medically documented thumb injury on the accused that matches the alleged assault. The defence contends that these items are merely circumstantial and do not rise to the level of independent corroboration required when the dying declaration’s admissibility is contested. The accused’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, will argue that the knife’s recovery from a location linked to the crime scene, coupled with the receipt, establishes a chain of possession but does not directly prove that the accused used the knife to inflict the fatal wounds. Moreover, the thumb injury could be explained by an unrelated accident, and without forensic linkage to the victim’s wounds, it remains inconclusive. The High Court must evaluate whether the physical evidence stands on its own to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold. This involves scrutinizing forensic reports on blood traces on the knife, the authenticity of the receipt, and expert testimony linking the thumb injury to the alleged assault. If the forensic analysis confirms that the blood on the knife matches the victim’s DNA and the receipt is genuine, the court may deem the evidence sufficient to corroborate the declaration. However, if gaps exist—such as lack of DNA confirmation or questionable chain of custody—the court may find the evidence inadequate, especially given the doubts surrounding the dying declaration. The practical implication is that, should the High Court deem the corroboration insufficient, it may set aside the conviction and remit the matter for a fresh trial, thereby protecting the accused’s right to a fair trial while ensuring that the prosecution meets its evidentiary burden.

Question: Is a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate remedy to challenge the High Court’s evidentiary rulings, and what standards will the court apply in reviewing those decisions?

Answer: After the conviction was affirmed on appeal, the accused’s only avenue to contest the legal principles applied by the appellate High Court is a revision petition filed under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The revision mechanism permits the court to examine whether the lower court exercised jurisdiction correctly and whether it applied the law of evidence properly, without re‑trying the factual matrix. The accused’s lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will argue that the revision petition is suitable because the contested issues—admissibility of the dying declaration with a post‑mortem thumb‑impression and the adequacy of corroboration—are pure questions of law. The High Court, in reviewing the revision, will apply the standard of “error apparent on the face of the record” and will not entertain fresh evidence unless it is necessary to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. The court will assess whether the earlier High Court’s interpretation of the completeness test and the requirement of corroboration aligns with established jurisprudence. It will also consider expert opinions submitted with the revision, such as forensic analyses of the thumb‑impression, to determine if the prior decision was based on a misapprehension of fact or law. If the court finds that the earlier judgment erred in law—by, for example, overlooking the risk of tampering inherent in a post‑mortem impression—it may quash the conviction and remit the matter for a fresh trial. Conversely, if the court concludes that the earlier rulings were consistent with legal precedents, it will dismiss the revision. The practical implication for the accused is that a successful revision could overturn the conviction, whereas a dismissal would leave the conviction intact, underscoring the critical importance of precise legal argumentation in the revision petition.

Question: Why is a revision petition the appropriate procedural remedy before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than a fresh appeal or a criminal revision in a lower forum?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused has already traversed the trial and appellate stages, with the Sessions Court convicting him and the High Court affirming that conviction on evidentiary rulings. At this juncture, the legal dispute does not centre on a re‑evaluation of the evidence per se but on the correctness of the legal standards applied by the High Court, specifically the admissibility of a dying declaration that bears a post‑mortem thumb‑impression and the requirement of independent corroboration. A fresh appeal is unavailable because the appellate hierarchy has been exhausted; the Supreme Court would entertain a special leave petition only on a question of law of exceptional public importance, which is not the case here. A criminal revision in a lower court is likewise barred, as revisions are confined to superior courts reviewing the jurisdictional or legal errors of subordinate courts. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, can entertain a revision petition to scrutinise whether the lower court exceeded its authority or misapplied the law. This remedy is tailored to address procedural defects without reopening the entire factual matrix, thereby preserving judicial economy. Moreover, the High Court’s power to quash a conviction, remit the matter for retrial, or issue a writ of certiorari aligns precisely with the accused’s need to challenge the legal basis of the conviction. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is framed in accordance with the High Court’s procedural rules, that precedents on dying declarations are aptly cited, and that the petition leverages the court’s power to correct legal errors, offering a focused avenue that a factual defence alone cannot provide at this advanced stage of the proceedings.

Question: How does the post‑mortem thumb‑impression on the dying declaration affect its admissibility and why does this raise a jurisdictional question for the High Court?

Answer: The thumb‑impression was obtained after the victim’s death, a circumstance that raises a serious doubt about the completeness and integrity of the dying declaration. Under the evidentiary principle that a dying declaration must be both complete and free from post‑mortem alteration, the impression could be viewed as a post‑hoc authentication that potentially allows tampering or misrepresentation. This factual nuance transforms the issue from a simple evidentiary dispute into a question of whether the High Court correctly interpreted the legal test for completeness. If the High Court erred in concluding that the post‑mortem impression did not affect reliability, it would have exercised its jurisdiction beyond the permissible limits, thereby infringing the accused’s right to a fair trial. The jurisdictional question is whether the High Court, in its appellate capacity, can re‑examine the admissibility of evidence that was already decided by the trial court, or whether such a re‑assessment is reserved for a revision proceeding that scrutinises legal errors. The presence of a post‑mortem thumb‑impression also invites expert forensic analysis, which was not part of the trial record, further underscoring the need for a higher court to reassess the legal standards applied. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, familiar with the nuanced jurisprudence on dying declarations, would argue that the High Court’s affirmation without addressing the thumb‑impression constitutes a jurisdictional overreach, thereby justifying a revision petition that seeks to correct this procedural flaw and ensure that the legal test for admissibility is properly applied.

Question: In what way does the lack of independent corroboration of the dying declaration create a ground for the High Court to intervene, and why cannot the accused rely solely on a factual defence at this stage?

Answer: The prosecution’s case hinges almost entirely on the dying declaration that names the accused, while the physical evidence – the knife, purchase receipt, and thumb injury – is presented as circumstantial corroboration. However, jurisprudence holds that a categoric dying declaration, though powerful, is not immune from the requirement of independent corroboration when the circumstances surrounding its recording raise doubts about reliability, such as the post‑mortem thumb‑impression. The High Court’s earlier ruling that corroboration was unnecessary disregarded this nuanced principle, effectively substituting a factual finding for a legal standard. At the revision stage, the accused cannot simply reiterate his factual defence – that he surrendered promptly, that the injury could be accidental, or that the knife could belong to someone else – because the factual matrix has already been examined and affirmed. What remains contestable is the legal reasoning that allowed the conviction to stand despite the absence of independent corroboration. The High Court, vested with the authority to examine whether lower courts have applied the law correctly, can intervene to correct a misapplication that led to an unsafe conviction. By focusing on the legal defect, the revision petition sidesteps the futility of re‑arguing facts already decided and instead seeks a judicial correction of the evidentiary standard. This approach underscores why a factual defence alone is insufficient; the procedural flaw lies in the legal interpretation of corroboration, a matter squarely within the High Court’s jurisdiction to rectify.

Question: What procedural steps must the accused follow to file the revision, and why might he seek a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to assist with drafting and filing?

Answer: The procedural roadmap begins with the preparation of a revision petition that succinctly sets out the legal errors alleged, namely the improper admission of the dying declaration with a post‑mortem thumb‑impression and the failure to require independent corroboration. The petition must be filed within the period prescribed by the High Court’s rules, typically thirty days from the receipt of the judgment, and must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned judgment, the FIR, trial court order, and any relevant forensic reports. The petitioner must also serve notice on the State, the investigating agency, and the complainant, ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to respond. Once filed, the High Court will issue a notice to the State, inviting a counter‑affidavit. The court may then either admit the petition for hearing or dismiss it if it finds no substantial question of law. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is prudent because the accused, though the revision is before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, may need counsel adept at navigating inter‑jurisdictional procedural nuances, especially when coordinating service of notice and gathering expert opinions from Chandigarh. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court possess practical experience in drafting revision petitions that meet the stylistic and substantive requirements of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and they can liaise with local counsel to ensure seamless filing. Moreover, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can advise on strategic use of expert forensic testimony on thumb‑impression reliability, thereby strengthening the petition’s legal arguments and enhancing the likelihood of the High Court exercising its power to quash the conviction.

Question: How does the High Court’s power to quash a conviction or remit the case for retrial operate in this context, and what practical implications does this have for the prosecution and the accused?

Answer: Upon entertaining the revision petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, thereby quashing the conviction if it finds that the legal standards governing dying declarations were misapplied. Alternatively, the court may remit the matter to the Sessions Court for a fresh trial, directing that the dying declaration be excluded or that independent corroboration be required before it can be considered. Such an order would nullify the existing sentence, release the accused from custody if he remains detained, and restore his liberty pending a new trial. For the prosecution, a quash order compels a reassessment of the evidentiary foundation; they must either gather additional independent evidence to satisfy the corroboration requirement or decide whether to re‑file the case with a revised charge. The practical effect is a reset of the procedural timeline, potentially extending the duration of the proceedings but ensuring that the accused is not punished on a legally infirm basis. Moreover, a remand for retrial may allow the accused to present fresh defence evidence, challenge the forensic validity of the thumb‑impression, and seek bail, thereby enhancing his procedural safeguards. The High Court’s remedial powers thus serve as a crucial check on lower courts’ legal interpretations, ensuring that convictions rest on sound legal principles rather than solely on contested factual narratives. This underscores why the accused must pursue a revision rather than rely on a factual defence, as only the High Court can rectify the procedural defect that underpins the conviction.

Question: Can the dying declaration be excluded on the ground that the thumb impression was obtained after the victim had died and therefore the statement is incomplete?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the victim uttered a full accusatory sentence naming the accused before his breath ceased and that the police officer recorded the verbal statement in the presence of witnesses. The thumb impression was affixed later, after death, to authenticate the document. Under the evidentiary rule a dying declaration must be complete, meaning the declarant said everything he intended before death intervened. The post mortem impression does not alter the words spoken, but it raises a question of authenticity because a signature or impression taken after death can be subject to manipulation. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would first examine the original register book, the presence of the witnesses, and any forensic analysis of the impression. If the impression was taken without any tampering, the declaration may still satisfy the completeness test. However, the lack of a contemporaneous signature means the court must be satisfied that the impression was a genuine representation of the victim’s hand. The defence can argue that the post mortem impression creates a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the document, especially when the prosecution has not produced any other corroborative statement from the victim. In a revision petition the court can be urged to treat the post mortem impression as a procedural defect that renders the declaration inadmissible, because the rule requires the statement to be recorded and authenticated before death. The strategic point is to show that the High Court erred in treating the impression as harmless, and that the error affected the conviction. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would prepare expert testimony on document examination to demonstrate the susceptibility of post mortem impressions to alteration, thereby strengthening the argument for exclusion.

Question: Does the absence of independent corroboration of the dying declaration, despite its categoric nature, make the conviction unsafe?

Answer: The prosecution relied on the knife, the purchase receipt and the thumb injury as corroboration, yet each of those pieces is linked to the accused only through the narrative that the victim’s statement created. Jurisprudence holds that a categoric dying declaration need not be corroborated when it is complete and reliable, but the reliability requirement is heightened when the statement is tainted by procedural irregularities such as a post mortem impression. The defence can therefore contend that the lack of independent corroboration, meaning evidence that does not depend on the accused’s alleged conduct, renders the conviction unsafe. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would scrutinise the forensic report on the knife, the chain of custody of the receipt, and the medical report on the thumb injury to assess whether they independently establish the accused’s guilt. If the knife could have been handled by another person, or the receipt is merely circumstantial, the court may find that the evidence does not rise to the level of independent corroboration. In the revision petition the argument would be that the High Court ignored the principle that a dying declaration, when compromised, must be supported by external proof. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise the accused to request that the revision court remand the matter for a fresh assessment of the corroborative material, emphasizing that the conviction rests on a single, potentially unreliable statement. The practical implication is that if the court accepts the lack of independent corroboration, it may set aside the conviction or order a retrial.

Question: What procedural remedies are available after the High Court has affirmed the conviction and how should the accused prioritize them?

Answer: Once the High Court has affirmed the conviction, the primary avenue for challenging the legal reasoning is a revision petition filed under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The revision is appropriate because the issue concerns a question of law – the admissibility of the dying declaration and the requirement of corroboration – rather than a factual dispute. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would draft the petition highlighting the procedural defect, the post mortem impression, and the lack of independent corroboration, and would seek a direction to set aside the judgment or remit the case for fresh consideration. An alternative route is to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court entertains such matters only when there is a substantial question of law of national importance, and the chances of success are lower. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can also explore filing a writ of certiorari or a habeas corpus if the accused remains in custody, arguing that the conviction is unsustainable. The strategic priority should be to secure a stay of the sentence while the revision is pending, thereby protecting the accused from execution of the rigorous imprisonment. The counsel must also consider the time factor; a revision is generally quicker than a Supreme Court petition. The practical implication is that a well‑crafted revision petition, supported by expert evidence, offers the most focused and efficient remedy to address the legal errors that led to the conviction.

Question: How can forensic expert testimony on the reliability of post mortem thumb impressions be introduced in the revision proceeding?

Answer: The revision stage permits the admission of fresh evidence that was not available or could not be produced at the trial, provided it is relevant to the legal issue under review. The defence should engage a forensic document examiner to prepare a detailed report on the susceptibility of post mortem impressions to alteration, the typical methods of authentication, and the specific characteristics of the impression on the declaration. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would file an annex to the revision petition attaching the expert report and a declaration of the expert’s qualifications. The court will then be asked to consider whether the expert evidence is admissible for the purpose of assessing the reliability of the thumb impression, not to re‑evaluate the factual guilt of the accused. The High Court has discretion to admit such evidence when it bears on a question of law, namely the admissibility of the dying declaration. The defence must also demonstrate that the expert’s findings were not available earlier despite due diligence, thereby satisfying the requirement that the evidence could not have been produced at the trial. The practical effect of introducing the expert report is to give the revision court a concrete basis to conclude that the post mortem impression undermines the completeness of the declaration, supporting the argument for exclusion. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would also anticipate any objection from the prosecution and be prepared to counter it by citing precedent where courts have allowed forensic evidence to clarify evidentiary defects in revision applications.

Question: What bail and custody considerations should the accused keep in mind while pursuing the revision, and how can the counsel mitigate the risk of continued imprisonment?

Answer: The accused remains in custody after the conviction, and the execution of the rigorous imprisonment may commence unless a stay is obtained. The defence should promptly move an application for bail pending the disposal of the revision petition, emphasizing that the conviction is based on a potentially inadmissible statement and that the accused has no prior criminal record. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the principles of justice require that a person not be deprived of liberty when a substantial question of law is under review, especially where the High Court’s decision may be set aside. The application must highlight the risk of irreversible harm if the sentence is executed before the revision is decided. Simultaneously, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can seek a direction for the suspension of the sentence, which is a specific form of relief distinct from bail, asking the court to stay the execution of the term until the revision is resolved. The counsel should also prepare to show that the accused is not a flight risk, has stable family ties, and is willing to comply with any conditions imposed. The practical implication is that securing bail or a stay preserves the accused’s liberty, allowing him to participate fully in the revision process and to present expert evidence without the pressure of imminent imprisonment. If the court denies bail, the defence can request that the sentence be deferred pending the outcome of the revision, thereby mitigating the risk of irreversible deprivation of liberty.