2026 P Cr. L J 277

 2026 P Cr. L J 277

[Islamabad]

Before Muhammad Azam Khan, J

MUHAMMAD SHOAIB HASSAN---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and another---Respondents

Criminal Revision No. 152 of 2025, decided on 17th November, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S.162---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 140---Penal Code (XLV

of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34---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---Resultantly, the criminal revisional petition

was dismissed.

Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza s case PLD 2019 SC 675 rel.

Raja Ikram Ameen Minhas for Petitioner.

Raja Muhammad Shafat Khan for Respondent No. 2.

Rana Hassan Abbas, ADPP for the State. Date of hearing: 17th November, 2025.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J.--- Through the instant Criminal

Revision Petition filed under Section 435 read with Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( Cr.P.C ), the Petitioner, Muhammad

Shoaib Hassan, is assailing the order dated 18.10.2025 ( Impugned

Order ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, East

Islamabad whereby his request for confronting the investigation

officer (PW-12) with a video clip obtained from the mobile phone of

one of the accused, has been declined.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the contents of the instant

petition, are that FIR No. 554/20, dated 17.09.2020, under Sections

302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C), was lodged against the

Petitioner by Respondent No. 2/complainant, namely Syed Uzair Naqvi,

at Police Station Koral, Islamabad. The complainant alleged that on

17.09.2020, at approximately 08:30 AM, he dropped his elder brother,

Syed Raza Naqvi, at his office located at Ranjha Arcade, Service Road,

Gulberg. After leaving, the complainant heard gunshots and, upon

looking back, saw a person sitting on the rear seat of a motorcycle

firing directly at his brother. As a result, his brother fell down the

stairs of the office, sustaining serious injuries, and later succumbed to

his injuries at PIMS Hospital.

3. After the registration of the FIR, the Petitioner was arrested. The

case proceeded to trial, where, during the cross-examination of PW-

12/I.O., DSP Ghulam Rasool, the Petitioner s counsel sought to confront

a video clip allegedly showing a press conference concerning the

arrest of the Petitioner. The video was said to contradict the

investigation and statements made by the investigating officers.

However, the trial court did not allow the Petitioner s counsel to

present or confront the video with the witness, as it had not been

offered during the course of the investigation. This refusal has now led

to the filing of the instant petition.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/accused argued that the

impugned order is ex-facie illegal, factually incorrect and contrary to

the settled principles of law; that the facts disclosed in the said press

conference are in direct contradiction to the official investigation and

the statements of PW-10 Inspector Munir Ahmed and PW-12 DSP

Ghulam Rasool, the Investigating Officers; that said press conference

directly pertains to the arrest, investigation, and evidentiary aspects of

the case and is thus material for the just decision of the matter; that

the video of the press conference constitutes relevant material

evidence, which, if allowed to be put to the witness, would assist the court in arriving at just conclusion; that learned trial court without

appreciating the right of cross-examination and fair trial, disallowed

the defense to put the video/press conference; that the learned trial

court has violated the Petitioner s right to cross-examination and fair

trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic

Republic of Pakistan, by disallowing the confrontation of the said

video; that it is well settled right of the accused to put any relevant

question, document or evidence to the prosecution witnesses during

cross-examination to impeach their credibility or confront

contradictions; that question of admissibility or relevancy of any such

question, documents or evidence is secondary and can be determined

subsequently, however, denial of confrontation altogether is

impermissible in law; that refusal to permit such confrontation has

caused prejudice to the defense case and is in violation of the

principles of natural justice and fair trial. Lastly, learned counsel

prayed for acceptance of instant petition, setting aside of impugned

order, for issuance of direction to learned trial court to allow the

playing of the video/press conference in court and to permit the

defense to confront the same to PW-12 Ghulam Rasool

DSP/Investigating Officer.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor (

ADPP ) duly assisted by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2,

opposed the petition and argued for its dismissal. They contended that

the trial court had correctly disallowed the video, as it had not been

offered during the investigation and lacked clarity regarding its

authenticity and source.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

parties and perused the available record with their able assistance.

7. As far as the principle of confrontation is concerned, it generally

relates to the cross-examination to a witness as to his previous

statements in writing as enshrined under Article 140 of the Qanun-e-

Shahadat Order, 1984, which is reproduced hereunder for ready

reference: -

140. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. A

witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made

by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to

matters in question, without such writing being shown to him,

or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the

writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be

called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of

contradicting him. Additionally, a witness can also be confronted with other relevant

documents which are 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 is

not even himself visible in the alleged press conference video which

the defense is aspiring to present and confront to the witness.

Moreover, the witness has also denied having any knowledge

regarding the contents of the subject video.

8. While interpreting the principle of confrontation under Section

162 Cr.P.C read with Article 140 QSO, the Hon ble Supreme Court of

Pakistan in case PLD 2019 SC 196 in a matter related to audio-video

recording of statements of witnesses held that although the statements

of witnesses can be video recorded but the video itself cannot be used

to confront the witness rather the statement in writing can only be

used for that purpose under section 162 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion is

reproduced below: -

While reading of Section 162 Cr.P.C. would reveal that no statement

made by any person to a police officer in the course of an

investigation shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person

making it nor shall any such statement or any record thereof

whether in a police diary or otherwise or any part of such

statement or record, be used except for the purpose of

contradicting its maker in terms of Article 140 of the Qanun-e-

Shahadat Order. Signing of such statement by its maker is

prohibited because it tends to bind its maker and impair his

freedom to speak truth in the Court. Recording of such statement

by audio video electronic means could be treated at par with a

statement which has been signed by its maker, inasmuch as it

hampers his freedom to testify in the Court. But in any case use

of audio or video devices to facilitate the recording of such

statement cannot be said to have been prohibited by any

interpretation of the provisions reproduced above when the

finished product to be used in the Court to confront the witness

is the statement reduced to writing and not its audio or video

recording.

9. Another point which needs consideration is that the trial court,

while passing the impugned order has rightly pointed out that the

defense never bothered to present the video in question before the

investigation officer in order to enable him to test its veracity and the

defense now attempted to show and confront the video from the

mobile phone of one of the accused without any explanation of its

source. The video presented in this case was not verified or

authenticated. The defense failed to provide any explanation  regarding how the video was obtained or what was its source.

Furthermore, the video was presented directly from the mobile

phone of one of the accused without any forensic report or other

forms of verification to confirm its authenticity. Needless to say that

in this era of scientific and technological advancement, it has become

need of the hour to exercise caution while entertaining an unverified

digital evidence. Keeping this in view, the Hon ble Supreme Court of

Pakistan laid down 21 guidelines for the admissibility of audio or

video evidence in case titled Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza s case (PLD 2019 SC

675). Recently, the Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan narrowed

down the list to only two mandatory requirements in case titled Zahir

Zakir Jaffar s Case (Criminal Petition No. 467 of 2023), relevant

portion whereof is being reproduced here:-

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.

Reverting to the instant case, not only the authenticity of the video

purportedly to be shown and confronted to the witness is under

question but also the source of the video in the mobile of one of the

accused remains unclear. Thus, the two-step verification as provided

in the case supra is not there. However, the defense retains alternate

remedies of establishing its plea while entering in defense evidence at

the relevant stage accordingly if it considers the video in question

supports its case.

10. In view of the above discussion, the trial court correctly

disallowed the confrontation of the video with the Investigating

Officer, as the video was neither part of the investigation nor

authenticated. The video evidence does 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. The

refusal to allow the video confrontation at this stage does not

constitute a violation of the Petitioner s constitutional rights.

Resultantly, the instant Criminal Revision Petition is hereby dismissed,

and the learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in

accordance with the law.

JK/216/Isl. Revision dismissed.