Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 77 of 1956, decided on 23rd May 1956.
(On appeal from the Order of the High Court of West Pakistan, dated the 5th April 1956, in Writ Petition No. 29 of 1956).
, Art. 170‑‑‑Writ of error‑‑Coram nobis‑Obsolete and unpractical.
Held, that the writ described as a writ of error‑‑coram nobis‑was an unusual and obsolete writ, the object of which was to secure a review of a considered decision of the High Court on grounds entirely, abstract and unpractical in character e.g., mathematical calculations aimed, at showing that a certain witness, the accused, and the victim could not be, at the time suggested, together at the spot of murder.
The motion for the writ was not entertained.
‑Criminal case‑Appreciation‑Application of mathematical formulae to be discouraged Facts of daily occur rence in criminal cases to be appreciated on basis of well tried principles embodied in statute and practice.
Held, that the introduction of mathematical formulae into the appreciation of evidence on questions of daily occurrence in criminal cases cannot be too firmly discouraged. It is contrary to the true conception of the dispensation of justice by the Courts. Such place as might be allowed to these processes, in the solution of problems relating to crime, must be confined to the realm of fiction.
Where relevant evidence had already been fully considered and pronounced upon by the competent Courts, acting on well tried principles embodied in statute and practice the Supreme Court refused to entertain an unusual motion for a writ described as one of coram nobis, seeking a review of evidence on the basis of mathematical equations involving several variables and aimed at proving that the eye‑witnesses, the accused and the victim of murder could not be together at the spot of crime at the time suggested.
Nasim Hassan Shah Advocate High Court of West Pakistan, briefed with Dost Muhammad Khan Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Virasat Hussain Alaqvi Attorney for Petitioner.
Respondent : Not represented.
Date of hearing : 23rd May 1956.
‑ This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, by which an application by the petitioner for a writ, described as a writ of error coram nobis was refused.
The circumstances of the application are most unusual. The petitioner is a convict undergoing a sentence of trans portation for life for murder. He was convicted on the 31st December 1951, and his appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the 13th June 1952. An application for special leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed on 27th October 1952.
The prosecution case was based on the evidence of four eye‑witnesses, supported by statements of two other witnesses, speaking to the movements of one or more of the accused persons shortly before the murder. The deceased, the accused and these witnesses had, all of them, been in motion, on foot or otherwise, up to the time of the murder, and the presence; of two or more of these persons at any place at the material times involved an element of coincidence. As one of these persons was on a motor‑cycle, and others were in a car, differ ential speeds were also involved.
The question of believing whether or not a witness or the witnesses to a particular incident could have been there at the material time, is one which arises for decision by the criminal Courts in almost every important case. It is ordinarily resolved on the basis of credibility coupled with reasonable probability. It was, however, contended in the application to the High Court and is repeated in the grounds of the present petition, that
it can be demonstrated, by the help of mathematical calculations that the so‑called eye‑witnesses could not possibly be present both at the places, where they state (in their statements before the Police and the committing Magistrate) that they were present when they saw the members of the accused party going up and down the Grand Trunk Road, and again be present together at the sport of murder at the time of the occurrence.
In furtherance of this claim, a document has been furnished which is described as "Annexure A' (Mathematical Calcula tions)". True to this description, it consists largely of propositions expressed in the form of equations, involving several variables.
We agree heartily with the order of the High Court refusing to entertain the motion before them. It was pre sented in an unusual form, which has admittedly been obsolete in England for about half a century. The object of the motion is to secure a review of a considered decision of the High Court, on grounds entirely abstract and unpractical in character. The introduction of mathematical formulae into the appreciation of evidence on questions of daily occurrence in criminal cases cannot be too firmly discouraged. It is contrary to the true conception of the dispensation of justice by the Courts. Such place as might be allowed to these processes in the solution of problems relating to crime, must be confined to the realm of fiction.
It is obvious that the petitioner cannot be permitted thus to challenge the conclusions in a finally decided case. The relevant evidence has already beet fully considered and pronounced upon by the competent Courts, acting on well tried principles now embodied in statute and practice. It is impossible to re‑open the case for the purpose of applying, to the appreciation of this evidence, a calculus of the petitioner's own devising.
The petition is dismissed.
A. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer