Admissibility as evidence

2023 MLD 1086 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 38, 39 & 40Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceDisclosure made by the accusedRecovery of weaponAdmissibility as evidence

Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and causing injuries to the complainant by inflicting dagger blows

Statement regarding admission of guilt amounting to confession was inadmissible in view of Arts. 38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but the second part, which related to the disclosure of a fact of recovery of the dagger from the roof top of the hotel, on pointation of accused was admissible and relevant as comtemplated under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Thus, the recovery of dagger being the crime weapon whereby deceased was murdered and complainant was injured by all means was a corroborative piece of evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

However, due to mitigating circumstances, the death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

2023 PCrLJ 1394 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 376(ii) & 509Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 162 & 265-CKidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, causing sexual harassmentAppreciation of evidenceAudio/video clip including snaps/photographsAdmissibility as evidence

Video evidence, tapes, snaps/photographs made available due to forensic techniques were regarded as documentary evidence though in electronic or digital form, therefore, principle of evidence relating to admissibility of documents were fully applicable to such forensic evidence

Audio/video clip including snaps/photographs (in digital form) as evidence maintained a dual character in the law of evidence; it is termed as electronic document as well as a material thing (physical evidence), also known as real evidence

Electronic document in the sense that "information" contained therein are the evidence of facts and oral account of which is to be presented through the words of a witness and not the document alone, while as material thing it is to be produced for the inspection of court

Audio/video clip including snaps/photographs (in digital form) is treated as digital evidence and it carries information that includes expression, gestures, voice and video, therefore, such clips/snaps are sought to be produced before the court to prove the 'information' contained in it as evidence of facts recorded therein

For placing the information on the record such facts need to be spoken through the mouth of a witness who has recorded or watched it

In such situation, it can only be produced or exhibited in the statement of such witness

In the present case, bringing on record such clip through the statement of complainant and the victim in the case to depose about the information contained therein fact by fact while playing the video clip in the court particularly when such video clip/snaps were certified as non-tempered and non-edited, generated by the experts of Forensic Science Agency through a cell phone recovered from the accused as per Forensic Science Agency Report, such report is per se admissible pursuant to S. 9 of Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007

Evidence in the form of audio/video clip/snap as material thing/real evidence will only be exhibited and produced for the inspection of court in the statement of an Investigating Officer who has collected it during the course of investigation albeit through secondary evidence as well

Before using such evidence in any form i.e., as document or as material thing/real evidence, copy of it must be supplied to accused to avoid using it as surprise evidence which is against the principles of fair trial and due process

Every statement of a witness contained information and such information is regarded as evidence, therefore, every information contained in audio/video clip, tapes, photographs, films etc. are also statements in documentary form which are required to be given to the accused under S. 265-C, Cr.P.C.

As the forensic evidence in this case was collected during investigation process, therefore, same fell in the categories of statements mentioned in S. 162, Cr.P.C. and copies of the same could safely be provided at any stage of the proceedings if the statement/ evidence was essential for just decision of the case

In such situations, the case was remanded to the Trial Court for the purpose of bringing on record the cited forensic evidence (video/snaps) in accordance with law, therefore, it was directed that the trial Court would call an expert before the Court who would prepare required copies of such video evidence/snaps etc. which would be handed over to the accused persons with surety that it might not be misused and time might also be given to them for preparation of their defence

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2021 SCMR 873 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Newspaper/press reportsAdmissibility as evidence

When the authors of press reports were not produced to own their reporting, admitting the said reports, and that too, as proof of the contents thereof, would be against safe administration of criminal justice.

2021 SCMR 873 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Newspapers reports/itemsAdmissibility as evidence

Such evidence must be viewed with strict caution.

2014 MLD 559 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38Qatl-e-amd, common intentionBail, grant ofFurther inquiryConfession before policeAdmissibility as evidenceUnseen occurrenceNo ocular account availableNo recovery of weaponEffectPolice found dead bodies of deceased persons during patrollingAccused was implicated subsequently with the crime on the information collected by the Investigation OfficerCrime in question was an unseen occurrence

During investigation, Investigation Officer failed to get any ocular account despite the fact that alleged offence took place in front of a place which was a restaurant, hotel and a wedding hall

Accused remained on physical remand for two days but neither weapon used in the commission of crime could be recovered from him nor any discovery was made on pointation of accused, which could connect him with the commission of the alleged offence

Observation of Trial Court that accused confessed his guilt before Investigation Officer was not legal as per Art. 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Mere heinousness of crime was no ground for refusal of bail if the case was one of further probe

Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.

2014 YLR 877 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 38Confession before policeAdmissibility as evidence

Alleged confession of accused during police investigation while in custody had no evidentiary value and same could not be used against him.

2013 PLD 193 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13(3)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79Suit for pre-emptionTalb-i-Ishhad, notice ofAdmissibility as evidenceRequirement

Notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was to be attested by two witnesses and it could not be used in evidence until and unless said two witnesses had been produced to prove attestation of the same.

2013 PCrLJ 369 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 40Recovery made on information (pointation) of accused in police custodyAdmissibility as evidencePrinciples

Discovery of any fact on the information of the accused in custody of police was admissible under Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

For the applicability of said Article, the prosecution must establish that information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed by him; that the discovery was of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from any other source and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from the information given by the accused.