19/10/2025
نور مقدم قتل کیس میں ظاہر ذاکر جعفر کی سزائے موت برقرار رکھنے کا سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 168
واقعاتی شہادت پر سزائے موت دی جاسکتی ہے۔
سی سی ٹی وی فوٹیج بطور پرائمری شہادت
The following queries arise for our consideration:
Question No= 01............................
i) In the context of capital punishments, is it permissible for convictions to be predicated on circumstantial evidence?
Answer:...........
In order to adjudicate the question No. (i) supra, it is now widely accepted that punishment can be imposed based on circumstantial evidence; however, it is subject to rigorous standards and principles. Conviction exclusively on the basis of circumstantial evidence is not prohibited by law. Nevertheless, the quality and sufficiency of the evidence are more important than its quantity. The circumstantial evidence must be of a nature that is inconsistent with the accused’s innocence. The accused must be linked to the offense by a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The conclusion of guilt must be reached by the collective application of the various pieces of circumstantial evidence, with one end (naeem)of the chain contacting the deceased individual and the other touching the accused individual’s neck. If any link in this chain is absent, the entire chain is disrupted and no conviction can be recorded in such a situation.
Question No= 02..........................
ii) . In a court of law, what is the admissibility of CCTV footage and its evidentiary value?
Answer:..............
Reverting to question No. (ii) it is worth mentioning that in the case of State v Ahmed Omar Sheikh (2021 SCMR 873), this Court has established a two-step test for the verification of digital evidence regarding CCTV footage. This examination necessitates that the evidence in question be both authentic and pertinent, and that it has been acquired from a trustworthy and dependable source. The list of conditions comprises:
“i) providing an explanation of how the video was obtained or its source, and
ii)presenting a forensic report to show that the video has not been altered.”
It is a well-known fact that technology has become so ingrained in our lives that everyone is utilizing one form of technology or another. Criminals are also employing this in our society, establishing a trail for digital forensics to follow in order to uncover their crimes. It is important to note that we were unable to capitalize on digital evidence for an extended period of time due to the following factors: Firstly, our courts were previously reliant on traditional methods of evidence collection and presentation. Secondly, digital evidence was admissible only under article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (“QSO of 1984), which allows the court to admit any evidence that is obtained through the use of modern devices if it is deemed appropriate. Thirdly, the evidence was considered hearsay. Nevertheless, in light of the growing (naeem)importance of tracing and identifying the perpetrators, some critical legislative changes were implemented to grant digital evidence the status of primary evidence. The Electronic Transactions Ordinance (ETO) was implemented in 2002 to capitalize on the advantages of information technology. This Ordinance has resulted in modifications to other laws, such as the QSO of 1984, that pertain to the admissibility of digital evidence. It has also designated such evidence as primary evidence.
The CCTV footage may also be admitted under the “Silent witness” theory, which stipulates that the video (naeem)itself functions as evidence without the necessity of a sponsoring witness, provided that the footage is authenticated. It provided unbiased and real-time evidence that is frequently more reliable than human testimony, serving as a potent “Silent Witness”. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, at page 1508, ‘Silent Witness Theory’ is mentioned as under:
“A method of authenticating and admitting evidence (such as a (naeem)photograph), without the need for a witness to verify its authenticity, upon a sufficient showing of the reliability of the process of producing the evidence, including proof that the evidence has not been altered.
The “Silent Witness theory” is a rule of evidence that allows for the admission of photographic video, or other recorded evidence as substantive proof of what it depicts, without the need for an eyewitness to testify that they personally observed (naeem)the events depicted in the recording (United States v. Harris, 55 M.J.433 (C.A.A.F 2001). Over the last 25 years, the “Silent Witness” theory of authentication has developed in almost all jurisdictions to allow photographs to substantively “speak for themselves” after being authenticated by evidence that supports the reliability of the process or system that produced the photographs. The threshold case for automated camera evidence is United States v. Taylor (530 F.2d 639 (5th Cir 1976)). In that case, footage recording a robbery that was taken after bank employees were locked in the bank vault was admitted, despite the fact that no one could testify as to the events shown.
The digital evidence has now assumed a crucial role in the courts of law while administrating justice. In the recent past such evidence was treated as hearsay and secondary (naeem)evidence in our country, however, as stated above, keeping in view its importance, particularly in tracing and identifying the culprits, required changes were made in the relevant laws in order to give the status of primary evidence to the digital evidence, thus, being primary evidence, it is admissible. The CCTV footages, if pass the two-fold test, as per dictum laid down by this Court in the case of Ahmad Omar Sheikh (supra), then it does not require any corroboration being primary evidence.
Crl.P.L.A.467/2023
Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State through A.G. Islamabad & another
