Can the death sentence be set aside by a revision petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court when evidence does not show which co accused caused the fatal wound in a common intention murder?

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

Suppose a person accused of a violent offence is tried before a Sessions Court for the murder of an individual who was unintentionally caught in a cross‑fire intended for a rival, and the trial court imposes the death penalty, which is subsequently affirmed by the High Court.

The factual matrix involves two co‑accused who, acting in concert, open fire on a target during a dispute over property. The intended victim manages to take cover behind a vehicle, but a by‑stander seated nearby is struck by multiple bullets. Medical testimony confirms that the by‑stander sustained two serious gunshot wounds—one to the abdomen and another to the thigh—both of which, in the ordinary course of nature, are sufficient to cause death. The prosecution, however, is unable to establish which of the two shooters fired the bullet that caused the fatal abdominal injury, and the forensic report does not link a specific weapon to a particular wound.

Both shooters are charged under the provision that punishes murder and under the clause that holds every participant in a common intention liable for the act committed in furtherance of that intention. The Sessions Judge convicts both of murder, sentencing each to death, and the conviction is later confirmed by the High Court. The accused maintains that, while they shared a common plan to eliminate the intended target, the lack of proof as to which of them caused the fatal injury creates a reasonable doubt that should preclude the imposition of the ultimate penalty.

The legal problem that emerges at this stage is twofold. First, the doctrine of common intention requires that the prosecution demonstrate that the fatal result was a direct consequence of the joint enterprise, even if the exact shooter cannot be identified. Second, the death sentence, being the harshest form of punishment, must satisfy the stringent standards laid down by jurisprudence, including the requirement that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the individual culpability for the lethal act. When the evidence falls short of establishing which co‑accused inflicted the fatal wound, the death penalty becomes vulnerable to challenge on the ground of doubtful causation and the principle of parity of punishment.

An ordinary factual defence—such as denying participation in the firing—does not fully address the procedural issue because the conviction under the common‑intention provision has already been affirmed. The accused therefore needs a remedy that can re‑examine the sentencing decision in light of the evidential gaps and the statutory safeguards governing capital punishment.

The appropriate procedural route is a criminal revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under the provisions that empower the High Court to examine the correctness of a decree passed by a subordinate court. The revision seeks to set aside the death sentence and substitute it with transportation for life, arguing that the lack of a clear link between either shooter and the fatal injury creates a reasonable doubt that bars the imposition of death, and that the principle of equality demands that co‑accused who are equally involved receive identical sentences.

To pursue this remedy, the accused engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who specializes in criminal‑law strategy and is well‑versed in drafting revision petitions. The counsel prepares a detailed memorandum highlighting the forensic inconclusiveness, the jurisprudential requirement that capital punishment be imposed only when the prosecution establishes the accused’s personal role in causing death, and the comparative sentencing of co‑accused in similar cases where life imprisonment was deemed appropriate.

The petition also invokes the doctrine of parity, contending that the High Court’s earlier decision to reduce the sentence of one co‑accused to life imprisonment creates a precedent that should be extended to the petitioner. By referencing prior judgments that emphasize equal treatment of participants in a joint enterprise, the revision seeks to demonstrate that maintaining a death sentence for one while another receives life imprisonment violates the principle of equal justice.

In support of the revision, the counsel cites the statutory framework governing murder and common intention, explaining that while Section 34 makes each participant liable for the act committed in furtherance of the common plan, it does not automatically justify the death penalty when the specific causative act cannot be ascribed to a particular individual. The argument stresses that the death sentence must be predicated on a clear, individualized finding of lethal conduct, which is absent in the present case.

The revision petition further raises the issue of procedural fairness, noting that the trial court’s findings on the fatal wound were based on a medical opinion that did not differentiate between the two bullets. The petition argues that the High Court, in confirming the death sentence, overlooked this critical evidentiary lacuna, thereby breaching the standards of proof required for capital punishment.

In preparing the case, the accused also consults lawyers in Chandigarh High Court to obtain comparative insights into how similar revision petitions have been handled in neighboring jurisdictions. These lawyers in Chandigarh High Court provide valuable precedents that reinforce the argument that a death sentence cannot stand where the prosecution fails to pinpoint the exact shooter responsible for the fatal injury.

When the revision petition is filed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court is tasked with examining whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law on common intention and sentencing. The High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain such a petition stems from its power to correct errors of law and ensure that the punishment imposed aligns with the evidentiary record and constitutional safeguards.

If the High Court is persuaded by the arguments, it may quash the death sentence and replace it with transportation for life, thereby aligning the petitioner’s punishment with that of the co‑accused and adhering to the principle of parity. Such a decision would also reaffirm the jurisprudential stance that the death penalty must be imposed only when the prosecution can incontrovertibly link the accused to the lethal act.

The outcome of the revision would not only provide relief to the petitioner but also serve as a guiding precedent for future cases involving joint enterprises where the exact causative act remains uncertain. It underscores the essential role of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in safeguarding the rights of the accused against disproportionate punishment when the evidentiary foundation is incomplete.

Question: Can the doctrine of common intention sustain a conviction for murder when the prosecution fails to prove which co‑accused actually caused the fatal wound?

Answer: The factual matrix shows two shooters acting in concert to eliminate a rival, yet the by‑stander who died was hit by an indeterminate bullet. Under the doctrine of common intention, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused shared a pre‑arranged plan to commit the unlawful act and that the fatal result was a direct consequence of that plan. In the present case, the complainant has established that both shooters opened fire with the common purpose of killing the intended target, and that the by‑stander’s death occurred in the course of that joint enterprise. The lack of forensic linkage to a specific weapon does not, per se, defeat the doctrine because the legal test focuses on the collective intent rather than on pinpointing the individual who delivered the lethal blow. However, the doctrine does not operate in a vacuum; it requires that the prosecution prove the causal nexus between the common plan and the death beyond reasonable doubt. The evidential gap creates a factual uncertainty that may give rise to reasonable doubt regarding the individual culpability of each shooter. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that while the common intention element is satisfied, the failure to attribute the fatal injury to either shooter undermines the certainty required for a murder conviction, especially when the penalty is death. Courts have held that where the lethal act cannot be ascribed to a particular participant, the conviction may be sustained under the common‑intention provision, but the sentencing must reflect the evidentiary weakness. Consequently, the accused may retain the murder conviction, yet the lack of specific causation is a critical factor that the reviewing High Court will weigh when assessing the propriety of the death sentence, potentially leading to a reduction of punishment to life imprisonment.

Question: Does the evidentiary shortfall regarding the specific shooter preclude the imposition of the death penalty under the heightened standards for capital punishment?

Answer: Capital punishment is subject to the most stringent evidentiary standards, requiring the prosecution to establish the accused’s personal role in causing death beyond reasonable doubt. In this scenario, the medical evidence confirms that the by‑stander suffered two fatal injuries, yet it does not identify which bullet originated from which firearm. The prosecution’s inability to link a specific shooter to the lethal wound creates a material doubt about the individual’s culpability for the fatal act. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would emphasize that the death penalty cannot be imposed where such doubt exists, as the jurisprudence mandates a clear, individualized finding of lethal conduct before the ultimate sanction can be justified. Moreover, the principle of proportionality demands that the severity of the punishment correspond to the certainty of guilt. The presence of a reasonable doubt regarding the causative act undermines the moral and legal justification for the death sentence. The High Court, when reviewing the case, must scrutinize whether the trial court’s findings satisfied the constitutional mandate for a fair trial and the procedural safeguards surrounding capital punishment. If the court determines that the evidentiary lacuna renders the conviction for murder insufficiently substantiated for the death penalty, it is compelled to either commute the sentence to transportation for life or order a fresh inquiry into the factual matrix. The practical implication for the accused is that the death sentence is vulnerable to being set aside, while the complainant may see the case remanded for reconsideration of the appropriate punishment, ensuring that the ultimate penalty is not imposed on a basis of speculative attribution.

Question: Is filing a criminal revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate procedural remedy, or should the accused pursue an appeal or other writ jurisdiction?

Answer: The procedural posture after the High Court’s confirmation of the death sentence limits the avenues of relief. An appeal against the conviction and sentence is generally available only when the appellate court has not yet rendered a final order. Since the High Court has already affirmed the death penalty, the accused must resort to a revision petition, which is a statutory remedy permitting a higher court to examine errors of law, jurisdiction, or grave miscarriage of justice in the subordinate court’s decree. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the revision is the correct route because it allows the court to scrutinize the legal correctness of the sentencing, especially in light of the evidentiary deficiencies and the principle of parity. The revision petition can raise issues such as the failure to apply the stringent standards for capital punishment, the misapprehension of the doctrine of common intention, and the violation of the right to equality in sentencing. While a writ of certiorari could be contemplated, it is typically confined to jurisdictional overreach or procedural irregularities, and the facts do not indicate a jurisdictional defect. An appeal on merits is barred by the finality of the High Court’s order. Therefore, the revision petition is the most viable remedy, enabling the court to quash the death sentence and substitute it with life imprisonment if it finds that the lower courts erred in law or fact. The practical implication is that the accused can seek immediate relief without the protracted timeline of a fresh trial, while the prosecution may be compelled to defend the legality of the sentencing decision before the same High Court.

Question: How does the principle of parity of punishment influence the High Court’s discretion to alter the death sentence when a co‑accused has already been sentenced to life imprisonment?

Answer: The principle of parity, rooted in the constitutional guarantee of equality before law, mandates that persons equally culpable for the same offence should receive comparable punishments. In the present case, one co‑accused has already been sentenced to transportation for life, while the petitioner faces the death penalty for an identical role in the joint enterprise. This disparity raises a serious question of unequal treatment, especially when the evidential record does not differentiate the individual contributions to the fatal injury. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would contend that the High Court possesses the discretion to rectify this imbalance by aligning the sentences, provided that the legal basis for the death penalty is not firmly established. The court must assess whether the death sentence was imposed on a solid foundation of individualized culpability, which, as discussed, is lacking. If the court determines that the death penalty is untenable due to reasonable doubt, it can invoke the parity principle to ensure that both co‑accused receive the same punishment, thereby upholding the doctrine of equal justice. The practical effect of applying parity is twofold: it safeguards the accused from disproportionate punishment and reinforces the integrity of the criminal justice system by preventing arbitrary sentencing. For the prosecution, it may necessitate a reassessment of the sentencing rationale, while for the complainant, it underscores the need for consistency in the application of punitive measures. Ultimately, the High Court’s discretion, guided by the parity principle, can lead to the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, thereby harmonizing the outcomes for both participants in the common intention.

Question: Why is a criminal revision petition the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the death sentence in this case, and why does the remedy lie before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than any other forum?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the Sessions Court sentenced both co‑accused to death and the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed that sentence. Under the constitutional scheme, a High Court possesses the authority to entertain a revision petition when a subordinate court’s decree is alleged to be erroneous in law or fact. The revision is not an appeal on the merits of the conviction; instead, it is a limited scrutiny of whether the lower courts correctly applied the legal standards governing capital punishment, particularly the requirement of individualized proof of lethal conduct. Because the conviction and sentence have already been confirmed by the High Court, the only remaining statutory avenue to seek a re‑examination is a criminal revision petition filed in the same High Court that confirmed the decree. This ensures that the same judicial body, which exercised appellate jurisdiction, can also correct any manifest error of law, a power expressly conferred by the High Court’s jurisdictional statutes. Moreover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the apex court for the territorial jurisdiction encompassing the Sessions Court where the trial was held, making it the only forum with the authority to quash or modify the death sentence. The accused therefore must approach a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who is versed in drafting revision petitions, because the counsel will need to articulate the precise legal infirmities – such as the failure to establish which shooter caused the fatal wound – and invoke the High Court’s power to set aside a decree that does not meet the stringent evidentiary threshold for death. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court also ensures compliance with procedural requisites like filing the petition within the prescribed period, serving notice on the prosecution, and attaching the requisite record of the trial and appellate proceedings, all of which are indispensable for the High Court to entertain the revision.

Question: How does the inability to pinpoint which co‑accused fired the fatal shot undermine the evidentiary foundation required for a death sentence, and why does a simple factual defence of denying participation fail at this stage?

Answer: The prosecution’s case rests on two essential pillars: proof of the joint intention to commit the violent act and proof that the accused personally caused the death. While the doctrine of common intention can attach liability to each participant for the result of the joint enterprise, the imposition of the ultimate penalty demands a higher standard – a clear, individualized link between the accused and the lethal injury. In the present facts, forensic evidence confirms two fatal wounds but does not attribute either wound to a specific shooter. This creates a reasonable doubt as to which co‑accused actually caused the death, a doubt that the jurisprudence on capital punishment treats as fatal to a death sentence. The factual defence that the accused merely denied pulling the trigger does not overcome this hurdle because the conviction under the common‑intention provision has already been affirmed. At the revision stage, the court does not re‑hear the factual dispute; instead, it examines whether the legal conclusion – that the death sentence was justified despite the evidentiary gap – is tenable. Consequently, the accused must rely on a procedural remedy that challenges the legal adequacy of the sentence, not on a fresh factual defence. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, familiar with precedent on the necessity of individualized proof for capital punishment, can help frame the argument that the death sentence violates the constitutional safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of life. By focusing on the procedural defect rather than re‑asserting factual innocence, the revision petition aligns with the High Court’s jurisdiction to correct errors of law, thereby offering a more viable path to relief.

Question: What are the concrete procedural steps the accused must follow to file a criminal revision petition, and why might the accused also seek advice from lawyers in Chandigarh High Court while preparing the petition?

Answer: The procedural roadmap begins with the preparation of a detailed memorandum of revision that sets out the factual background, the specific errors alleged, and the relief sought. The memorandum must be filed within the statutory period after the High Court’s confirmation of the death sentence, typically within thirty days, and must be accompanied by the certified copy of the decree, the trial court record, and the appellate judgment. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on the prosecution, usually the State’s counsel, and obtain an order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the respondent to file a response. The petition should specifically invoke the High Court’s power to examine whether the lower courts erred in applying the legal test for death penalty, highlighting the lack of individualized proof and the violation of the principle of parity. While the primary jurisdiction lies with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused may also consult lawyers in Chandigarh High Court to gain comparative insights into how similar revision petitions have been handled in neighboring jurisdictions. Such lawyers can provide precedent on the High Court’s approach to evidentiary gaps in capital cases, assist in drafting persuasive arguments, and advise on procedural nuances such as the format of annexures and the timing of oral arguments. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court therefore enriches the petition’s jurisprudential foundation, ensuring that the arguments are calibrated to the prevailing judicial temperament across the region. Once the petition is filed, the High Court may issue a notice to the State, schedule a hearing, and eventually render a decision that could either uphold, modify, or set aside the death sentence, depending on whether it finds the legal error established.

Question: How can the principle of parity of punishment be effectively invoked in the revision petition, and what practical outcomes could arise if the Punjab and Haryana High Court accepts the argument that both co‑accused should receive identical sentences?

Answer: The principle of parity mandates that persons equally culpable in a joint enterprise receive the same quantum of punishment, a doctrine repeatedly affirmed by higher courts to uphold the constitutional guarantee of equality before law. In the present scenario, one co‑accused has already had his death sentence reduced to transportation for life by the High Court, while the petitioner continues to face the death penalty. The revision petition should therefore argue that maintaining disparate sentences violates the parity principle, especially when the evidential record fails to distinguish the individual who caused the fatal wound. By emphasizing that the forensic report does not attribute the lethal injury to either shooter, the petition demonstrates that both participants are equally involved and equally uncertain as to personal culpability. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will craft this argument, citing precedent where the High Court aligned sentences of co‑accused under similar factual circumstances. If the High Court accepts this line of reasoning, it is likely to quash the death sentence and substitute it with transportation for life, thereby harmonizing the punishment of both co‑accused. Such an outcome not only provides immediate relief to the petitioner but also reinforces the jurisprudential standard that capital punishment cannot be imposed where the prosecution’s case does not meet the heightened burden of proof for each individual. Additionally, the decision would send a clear message to the prosecution and investigating agencies that evidentiary gaps cannot be ignored in sentencing, prompting more rigorous proof standards in future murder trials. The practical effect, therefore, is a uniform sentence that upholds the constitutional ethos of equality, while also preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system by ensuring that the death penalty remains an exceptional, not routine, sanction.

Question: How can the lack of forensic linkage between each shooter and the fatal wound be leveraged to argue for quashing the death sentence in a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that two co‑accused opened fire, yet the forensic report does not attribute any specific bullet to the abdominal injury that proved fatal. This evidentiary lacuna is pivotal because capital punishment demands proof beyond reasonable doubt of the accused’s personal role in causing death. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will begin by dissecting the prosecution’s burden: it must establish not merely participation in a joint enterprise but also the causal link between the accused’s act and the lethal result. The revision petition should foreground expert testimony that the medical examiner’s opinion treats the wounds as a composite outcome of multiple shots, thereby precluding a definitive assignment of causation. By filing a detailed affidavit of the forensic expert, the counsel can demonstrate that the trial court’s conclusion rested on an inference rather than a factual finding. The argument must also invoke the constitutional safeguard that the death penalty is permissible only when the prosecution’s case is ironclad, citing jurisprudence that emphasizes individualized culpability. The petition should request that the High Court apply the principle of “reasonable doubt” to the sentencing stage, contending that the doubt regarding which shooter inflicted the fatal wound automatically defeats the threshold for death. Practically, the court may either set aside the death sentence or remit the matter for re‑consideration of sentencing, substituting transportation for life. This strategy not only attacks the evidential foundation of the capital sentence but also aligns with the doctrine of proportionality, ensuring that the punishment reflects the degree of proven guilt. If successful, the accused avoids execution and receives a sentence commensurate with the proven aspects of his participation, while the prosecution’s case is constrained by the same evidentiary standards that govern all capital convictions.

Question: What procedural defects in the trial court’s reliance on the medical opinion can be highlighted to undermine the conviction and sentence, and how should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court structure this argument?

Answer: The trial court’s judgment rests heavily on a medical opinion that identified two serious injuries sufficient to cause death but failed to differentiate which bullet caused which wound. This creates a procedural defect because the court treated a general medical conclusion as conclusive proof of the accused’s lethal act without a specific forensic correlation. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court will argue that this conflation violates the principle that each element of the offence, especially the causation element, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The argument should begin by obtaining the original forensic report, the autopsy notes, and the medical expert’s deposition to show that the report expressly states the inability to link a particular bullet to the fatal injury. Next, the counsel will point out that the trial court ignored this disclaimer and proceeded to infer causation, a step that is not permissible under established procedural safeguards. The petition must also highlight that the prosecution did not produce any ballistic analysis or witness testimony that could bridge the gap, thereby breaching the duty of the prosecution to prove each essential ingredient of murder. By emphasizing that the court’s reasoning was based on an inference rather than a factual determination, the argument seeks to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the petition can request that the High Court scrutinize the trial court’s failure to apply the “benefit of doubt” rule, especially in capital cases where the stakes are highest. If the High Court accepts this procedural flaw, it may either set aside the conviction for lack of proof or, at the very least, remit the matter for a fresh trial on the issue of causation, thereby providing the accused a realistic chance to escape the death penalty.

Question: Considering the accused is currently in custody, what are the prospects and strategic considerations for obtaining bail pending the outcome of the revision petition?

Answer: While the revision petition is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused remains in custody, which raises immediate concerns about liberty and the risk of execution. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can file an application for bail on the ground that the revision raises substantial questions of law and fact that could materially affect the conviction and sentence. The bail application should underscore that the death sentence is under serious challenge due to the evidentiary gap concerning the fatal wound, and that the High Court’s decision on the revision could result in a complete set‑aside of the capital punishment. The counsel must also argue that the accused does not pose a flight risk, given his deep family ties and the fact that the trial court has already ordered a life sentence for the co‑accused, indicating a reduced incentive to flee. Moreover, the application should highlight that the accused’s continued detention serves no custodial purpose beyond punitive measures, especially when the legal question of whether the death penalty can be sustained is unresolved. The strategic move is to request a personal bond with stringent conditions, such as surrender of passport and regular reporting to the police, to assuage any concerns of the court. If bail is granted, it not only preserves the accused’s liberty but also allows him to actively participate in the preparation of the revision, including coordinating with forensic experts and gathering comparative jurisprudence. Conversely, if bail is denied, the counsel should be prepared to file a writ of habeas corpus before the High Court, arguing that the continued detention violates the principle of “life until conviction is final” and that the pending revision constitutes a substantial ground for release. The overall strategy hinges on demonstrating that the legal issues raised are not merely technical but strike at the heart of the death sentence’s validity, thereby justifying bail as a reasonable interim relief.

Question: Which documentary evidences and ancillary materials should be compiled to strengthen the revision petition, and how can lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensure their admissibility?

Answer: To construct a robust revision petition, the counsel must assemble a comprehensive dossier that includes the original FIR, charge sheet, trial court judgment, High Court confirmation order, forensic analysis report, autopsy findings, medical expert’s affidavit, and any ballistic examination records. Additionally, the petition should attach the sentencing order of the co‑accused, showing the disparity in punishment, and relevant comparative judgments from both the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Chandigarh High Court that address similar evidentiary gaps. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court must ensure each document is authenticated, preferably by obtaining certified copies from the court registry or the investigating agency. The forensic report should be accompanied by a fresh affidavit from the forensic expert reaffirming the original conclusions and explicitly stating the inability to link a specific bullet to the fatal wound. This helps preempt any objection on the ground of stale evidence. The medical expert’s affidavit must be notarized and should detail the nature of the injuries, the lack of differentiation between the bullets, and the consequent reasonable doubt. Moreover, the petition should include a detailed chronology of the case, highlighting procedural lapses such as the trial court’s failure to order a second autopsy or to consider alternative forensic opinions. To ensure admissibility, the counsel should file a pre‑petition motion seeking the court’s direction to admit these documents under the principle that they are essential for a fair determination of the sentencing issue. The petition must also argue that the documents are not hearsay but fall within the category of public records and expert opinions, which are admissible under the Evidence Act. By meticulously organizing the evidentiary bundle and pre‑emptively addressing potential objections, the lawyers can fortify the revision petition and increase the likelihood that the High Court will entertain the substantive arguments on causation and parity, potentially leading to the quashing of the death sentence.

Question: How can the principle of parity and comparative jurisprudence from the Chandigarh High Court be employed to argue for equal sentencing of the co‑accused?

Answer: The doctrine of parity mandates that co‑accused who are equally culpable must receive identical punishment, a principle that has been repeatedly affirmed by higher courts. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can draw on decisions from the Chandigarh High Court where the death penalty was reduced to life imprisonment on the basis that the prosecution could not pinpoint the exact shooter responsible for the fatal injury in a joint enterprise. By citing such precedents, the counsel can demonstrate that the High Court’s earlier reduction of the co‑accused’s sentence establishes a binding comparative framework. The argument should articulate that the factual circumstances of the present case mirror those in the Chandigarh High Court rulings: identical joint firing, indistinguishable ballistic evidence, and the same level of participation in the common intention. The petition must therefore contend that maintaining a death sentence for one while the other serves life imprisonment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and the established jurisprudential standard of equal treatment. Moreover, the counsel can emphasize that the principle of proportionality requires the punishment to reflect the proven degree of guilt, and where the evidence does not differentiate between the shooters, the harsher penalty becomes arbitrary. By integrating the comparative jurisprudence, the petition not only underscores the inconsistency in sentencing but also leverages the persuasive authority of the Chandigarh High Court to persuade the Punjab and Haryana High Court to align its decision with the broader judicial consensus. If the court accepts this line of reasoning, it is likely to either commute the death sentence to life imprisonment or remand the matter for re‑evaluation of sentencing, thereby ensuring that both co‑accused are treated uniformly in accordance with the principle of parity.