05/09/2026
2026 P Cr. L J 277
PLJ 2026 CrC (Note) 204
Confronting witness with a video clip---Scope---Application for confronting the Investigating Officer with a video clip obtained from the mobile phone of one of the accused had been declined---Validity---Witness could be confronted with other relevant documents which were admittedly authored or signed by the said witness in order to contradict him---However, in the present case, let alone being the maker/author of the video in question, the witness was not even himself visible in the alleged press conference video which the defence was aspiring to present and confront to the witness---Moreover, the witness had also denied having any knowledge regarding the contents of the subject video---Not only the authenticity of the video purportedly to be shown and confronted to the witness was under question but also the source of the video in the mobile of one of the accused remained unclear---Thus, the two-step verification was not there---However, the defence retained alternate remedies of establishing its plea while entering in defence evidence at the relevant stage accordingly if it considered the video in question supported its case---Video under question was neither part of the investigation nor authenticated---Video evidence did not meet the necessary legal requirements for admissibility, as it was not verified or sourced, and no forensic report was provided to confirm its authenticity---Refusal to allow the video confrontation at this stage did not constitute a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights--
Adv Tariq Saleem Sial