2026 P Cr. L J 43

 2026 P Cr. L J 43

[Sindh]

Before Khalid Hussain Shahani, J

NOUMAN---Applicant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Revision Application No. 197 of 2020, decided on 15th April,

2025.

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016)---

----Ss. 16, 20 & 21---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109 & 500---

Tampering, etc., of communication equipment, malicious code, cyber

stalking, abetment, defamation---Appreciation of evidence---

Concurrent findings of conviction---Complainant alleged that

accused-petitioner had been uploading her obscene and objectionable

pictures on Facebook---During the enquiry conducted by the FIA

Cyber Crime Circle, the accused was specifically confronted with the

Facebook accounts and he voluntarily admitted to have created both

profiles---Accused further confessed that he had uploaded, circulated,

and transmitted obscene and nude photographs of the complainant

through those platforms without her consent---Technical analysis

team obtained and examined IP logs and device usage data shared by

Facebook, which showed consistent logins to the impugned Facebook

IDs from IP addresses associated with an internet connection

registered in the name of the brother of the applicant at their shared

residence---Moreover, forensic analysis of the mobile device

recovered during the raid confirmed that the handset remained in

the continuous use of the applicant---Forensic data extracted from the

said device included access logs, media files and saved credentials

directly correlating with the impugned Facebook accounts and

objectionable content---It was further substantiated that the Ufone

mobile number, which was used for verification and recovery of said

Facebook IDs, was registered in the name of accused-petitioner and

remained in his active use during the relevant period---Convergence

of testimonial admission, corroborated technical evidence and

verified forensic findings left no room for doubt regarding the

identity of the perpetrator---Digital trail meticulously traced and

authenticated by the forensic team unequivocally confirmed that the

applicant was the creator and operator of the Facebook IDs in

question and the originator of the illicit online transmission of

private and explicit material targeting the complainant being his ex-

wife---Complainant was the pivotal witness in the case and her

evidence had been thoroughly scrutinized by the Court in juxtaposition with the concurrent findings of the Courts below---

Report produced by the Investigating Officer from M/s Connect

Communication Authority further confirmed that the internet

connection used for uploading the said images was registered in the

name of real brother of the applicant---Said Wi-Fi connection was

installed at the premises, where the applicant resided along with

other family members---Applicant also admitted the same address as

his place of residence, corresponding with the IP address used in the

commission of the offence---Although the applicant took the plea that

the SIM card, albeit registered in his name, was being used by his

wife, the complainant in the case was, in fact, his ex-wife, with their

marriage having been dissolved through a decree of Khula---During

trial, two brothers of applicant appeared as prosecution witnesses---

Testimonies of both witnesses, being close relatives of the applicant,

not only remained unshaken but also stood in consonance with the

prosecution case and the investigative findings, lending

corroboration to the fact that the digital devices and associated

accounts were operated from within the household of the applicant---

Forensic Analysis Report submitted by the FIA Cyber Crime Wing

further corroborated that admission---Forensic examination of the

mobile phone recovered from the possession of the applicant,

confirmed to have remained in his continuous use, revealed login

credentials, chat histories and media files directly linking him to the

Facebook accounts and the objectionable transmissions in question---

Technical report explicitly confirmed that the images were uploaded

through devices used exclusively by the applicant and that the

Facebook IDs were accessed from IP addresses corresponding to the

locations frequented by him---Said findings were supported by the

Digital Forensics Expert, who, while observing the prescribed

protocols and standard operating procedures for cyber investigation,

validated the extraction and preservation of evidence from the

device---Integrity of the digital chain of custody, the technical

evidence retrieved from the mobile phone, and the explicit forensic

linkages between the fake Facebook accounts and the accused

established his culpability beyond any shadow of doubt---Criminal

revision application, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Muhammad Shahid Malik for Applicant.

Sharafuddin Jamali, Asst; Attorney General for the State.

Date of hearing: 7th April, 2025.

ORDER

KHALID HUSSAIN SHAHANI, J.---Criminal Revision Application is

directed against the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the

learned Judicial Magistrate-I South, Karachi vide judgment dated

29.01.2020, and upheld by the learned Sessions Judge South, Karachi vide judgment dated 24.11.2020, whereby the applicant/accused Noman

son of Muhammad Akram was convicted for offence under sections 16,

20, and 21 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), and

sentenced to one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 40,000/-, and in default of

payment, to further undergo one month of simple imprisonment.

2. As per prosecution theory; an Enquiry No. 196/2018 dated

10.08.2018 was initiated at Police Station FIA, Cyber Crime Circle (NR3C),

Karachi on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Ms. Rabia

Younis. In her complaint, the complainant alleged that her ex-husband,

Mr. Nouman Akram, had been uploading her obscene and objectionable

pictures on Facebook, thereby violating her privacy and dignity. She

further stated that he had created fake Facebook profiles impersonating

her under the names Rabia Khan and used the following Facebook IDs

and URLs viz. Facebook ID: 100022098964733 URL:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022098964733

FacebookID:100025138057958URL:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?

id=100025138057958, She further reported that Nouman Akram was

sending her threatening and abusive messages via SMS from mobile

number 0332-2927018, and that due to the continuous harassment, she

had attempted to commit suicide. She asserted that the accused had

destroyed her social reputation and continued to blackmail her. During

the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer recorded the detailed statement of the

complainant, affirming the allegations. Subsequently, a request was

forwarded to Facebook s security team to obtain IP logs and related data

of the above-mentioned Facebook profiles. In response, on 19.07.2018,

Facebook provided the relevant IP logs and associated data, which

included the following:

IP: 122.8.142.50 Date/Time: 19:35 (unspecified date)

IP: 196.194.138.44 Date/Time: 02-05-2018, 00:49:00

IP: 111.88.27.165 Date/Time: 02-05-2018, 00:36:53

IP: 202.5.157.48 Date/Time: 24-04-2018, 00:05:11

Verified Cell Number associated: 0337-9234922

3. The IP addresses were traced back to M/s Connect

Communications, and the mobile number 0337-9234922 was verified to

be registered with M/s Ufone, and in the name of Nouman, CNIC No.

42301-9424075. Details of the IP subscribers were ascertained from M/s

Connect Communications. It was further revealed that Rizwan Khan

is/was the brother of the accused Nouman Akram, and both reside at

Flat No. 601, 6th Floor, Wali Garden, West Karachi. With approval from

the competent authority, a raiding party of FIA, Cyber Crime Circle,

NR3C, Karachi, headed by the I.O., conducted a raid after making a

proper entry in Roznamcha at PS Garden City, Karachi. Upon arrival

and knocking at the said flat, a person came to the door, he introduced himself as Nouman Akram and the FIA CCC Karachi technically

analyzed his mobile phone and found the number of obsence/nude

pictures of complainant in the recovered mobile phone. Facebook

accessed and found the Login I.D in the name of Rabia Khan. Following

the completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted for

offence under Sections 16, 20, 21, and 24 of PECA, and trial was

conducted.

4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined seven (07)

witnesses, and after recording the statement of the accused under

Section 342 Cr.P.C., the trial court convicted the applicant as noted

above. The appellate court, upon hearing Cr. Appeal No. 07/2020,

dismissed the same, maintaining the conviction and sentence. Hence,

the applicant/accused has filed the instant revision application.

5. At the very outset, learned defense counsel argued, the applicant

has been falsely implicated in this case due to personal vendetta and

strained matrimonial relations. There is no direct or independent

evidence proving that the applicant created or operated the fake

Facebook accounts in question. He added, the complainant failed to

produce cogent evidence demonstrating that the alleged Facebook

accounts were indeed created or managed by the applicant. He put

stance that in her cross-examination, the complainant admitted that she

had no proof connecting the accused to the specific acts alleged. He

argued that prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions

and inconsistencies. For instance, the complainant admitted she had not

disclosed the names of those who informed her of the fake accounts, nor

had she presented any of the individuals to whom the objectionable

content was allegedly forwarded. He further argued that no

independent witness was associated with the raid or recovery, despite

the requirement under Section 103 Cr.P.C. The entire case rests on the

testimony of interested and partisan witnesses. He argued that the

alleged recovery of objectionable material from the mobile phone of the

applicant was made in violation of legal safeguards and without proper

digital forensics protocols or independent verification. The chain of

custody is also questionable. He argued that the so-called confession

made by the accused at the time of arrest was not recorded under any

provision of law and is hit by Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,

1984, being a statement before a police officer and hence inadmissible.

He argued that no qualified digital forensics expert was produced to

establish that the accused had accessed or operated the alleged fake

accounts. The logs provided by Facebook are insufficient without

technical corroboration. He argued that both the trial court and

appellate court have misread and/or ignored significant parts of the

record, including the lack of direct attribution of the offense to the

applicant, thereby rendering the findings of conviction unsustainable in

law. He argued that even if part of the prosecution story is believed, the benefit of doubt must go to the applicant in accordance with the settled

principles of criminal jurisprudence. The courts below failed to apply

this cardinal principle. He argued that the FIR was lodged after the

applicant had already been taken into custody by Military Police on a

separate complaint, raising serious doubt about the bona fide nature of

this case. The present FIR appears to be an afterthought and a means of

harassment. He argued that prosecution has failed to prove that the

applicant transmitted or publically exhibited the content in question to

any third party, a necessary element under Sections 20 and 21 PECA. He

argued that the prosecution has not established any motive or mens rea,

nor any intent to cause harm or blackmail, which are essential

ingredients under PECA for establishing criminal liability. He argued

that the concurrent findings are based on conjectures and assumptions

rather than solid legal evidence and are therefore liable to be set aside

in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. On the other hand Mr. Jamali, the learned APG for the State

vehemently opposed the revision by stating that prosecution

successfully discharged its burden through reliable and cogent digital

evidence. The Facebook accounts in question were traced to an IP

address and mobile number registered in the name of the accused,

with this connection independently confirmed by PTCL and mobile

service providers. This established a clear and unbroken link between

the accused and the commission of the offence. He argued that the

accused, at the time of his arrest during the raid, voluntarily admitted

to creating the fake Facebook profiles and uploading the obscene

material. Although not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such a

spontaneous admission is admissible as part of the res gestae under

Article 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The forensic

examination of the accused s mobile phone further substantiated the

prosecution s case. He argued that obscene images identical to those

posted on the fake Facebook accounts were recovered from the device,

alongside screenshots and login credentials, all of which aligned with

the content of the impugned profiles. Notably, the defense did not

produce any rebuttal to the forensic expert's report, nor did it allege

any bias or mala fide on the part of the FIA officials or the forensic

examiner. The APG emphasized that offences under PECA are

inherently digital and do not require eye-witnesses account; instead,

verified technical evidence is both sufficient and conclusive. He argued

that there are different case laws which recognizes that properly

collected digital evidence, corroborated by expert opinion, can sustain

a conviction even in the absence of ocular support. The APG concluded

by highlighting that both the trial court and appellate court

concurrently upheld the conviction after appreciating the evidence in

accordance with law, and no misreading or non-reading has been

shown by the applicant to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the conviction merits affirmation and the revision

application deserves to be dismissed.

7. Upon careful appraisal of the material available on record, it is

established that the appellant Nouman Akram, created and operated

two fake Facebook profiles impersonating the complainant under the

display name Rabia Khan. These accounts were accessible through the

following URLs:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022098964733

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100025138057958

8. During the enquiry conducted by the FIA Cyber Crime Circle, the

accused was specifically confronted with the above Facebook accounts,

and he voluntarily admitted to have created both profiles. He further

confessed that he had uploaded, circulated, and transmitted obscene

and nude photographs of the complainant, Ms. Rabia Younis, through

these platforms without her consent. The technical analysis team of

NR3C, Karachi, obtained and examined IP logs and device usage data

shared by Facebook, which showed consistent logins to the impugned

Facebook IDs from IP addresses associated with an internet connection

registered in the name of Rizwan Khan, the brother of the applicant, at

their shared residence, i.e., Flat No. 601, 6th Floor, Wali Garden, West

Karachi. Moreover, forensic analysis of the mobile device recovered

during the raid confirmed that the handset remained in the continuous

use of the applicant Nouman Akram. The forensic data extracted from

the said device included access logs, media files, and saved credentials

directly correlating with the impugned Facebook accounts and

objectionable content. It further substantiated that the Ufone mobile

number 0337-9234922, which was used for verification and recovery of

said Facebook IDs, was registered in the name of Nouman Akram and

remained in his active use during the relevant period.

9. The convergence of testimonial admission, corroborated technical

evidence, and verified forensic findings leaves no room for doubt

regarding the identity of the perpetrator. The digital trail meticulously

traced and authenticated by the forensic team unequivocally confirms

that the applicant, Nouman Akram, was the creator and operator of the

Facebook IDs in question and the originator of the illicit online

transmission of private and explicit material targeting the complainant

being his ex-wife.

10. The complainant is the pivotal witness in this case, and her

evidence has been thoroughly scrutinized by this Court in

juxtaposition with the concurrent findings of the learned courts below.

It emerges from the evidence that SIM No. 0337-9234922 was

registered in the name of applicant Noman, and it was this very

number that was utilized in the creation of the fake Facebook ID on which objectionable photographs of the complainant were uploaded.

The report produced by the investigating officer from M/s Connect

Communication Authority further confirms that the internet

connection used for uploading the said images was registered in the

name of one Rizwan, the real brother of the applicant. This Wi-Fi

connection was installed at the premises where the applicant resided

along with other family members. The applicant also admitted the

same address as his place of residence, corresponding with the IP

address used in the commission of the offence. Although the applicant

took the plea that the SIM card, albeit registered in his name, was

being used by his wife, the complainant in this case was, in fact, his ex-

wife, with their marriage having been dissolved through a decree of

Khula dated 09.09.2017.

11. The Facebook account in question was created on 14.09.2017,

merely five days after the dissolution of marriage, which clearly

demonstrates the existence of motive and a vindictive mens rea on the

part of the applicant. The objectionable material was subsequently

posted during the year 2018. There is no denial on record from the

complainant that the applicant was in possession of her photographs.

Rather, it is an admitted position that they were married from 2011 to

2017 and during that period, as a serving officer in the Pakistan Army,

the complainant used to send personal images to the applicant. This

lends further credence to the prosecution s case that the applicant was

the only person in possession of such images.

12. Furthermore, the learned trial court recorded the testimony of

Muhammad Kamran, the real brother of applicant, he unequivocally

deposed in his examination-in-chief that the SIM bearing No. 0332-

2927018 was registered in his name and had been handed over to his

brother, Muhammad Noman (the applicant), in the year 2012, who had

been using it since then. Despite being subjected to cross-examination,

the defense failed to elicit anything beneficial or contradictory from his

testimony. Similarly, P.W-04 Muhammad Rizwan deposed that the Wi-Fi

device in question was registered in his name, but was used by all

family members owing to their joint family setup. His cross-examination

too did not result in any material inconsistency. The testimonies of both

witnesses, being close related of the applicant, not only remained

unshaken but also stood in consonance with the prosecution case and

the investigative findings, lending corroboration to the fact that the

digital devices and associated accounts were operated from within the

household of the applicant.

13. On evaluation of the material brought on record and in light of the

admissions of the accused during inquiry and the digital forensic

evidence, it has been conclusively established that the accused Nouman

was the creator and operator of two fake Facebook profiles bearing the https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022098964733

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100025138057958

14. These profiles were used to upload, disseminate, and transmit

objectionable, nude, and vulgar images of the complainant, Ms. Rabia

Younis, without her consent, with the intent to harm her reputation,

disgrace her modesty, and blackmail her. During interrogation, when

specifically questioned, Nouman voluntarily admitted to have created

these Facebook IDs using the Ufone SIM number 0337-9234922, which

stands registered in his own name and was actively used in the

commission of the offence.

15. The Forensic Analysis Report submitted by the FIA Cyber Crime

Wing further corroborates this admission. The forensic examination of

the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the applicant,

confirmed to have remained in his continuous use, revealed login

credentials, chat histories, and media files directly linking him to the

aforementioned Facebook accounts and the objectionable transmissions

in question. The technical report explicitly confirmed that the images

were uploaded through devices used exclusively by the applicant and

that the Facebook IDs were accessed from IP addresses corresponding to

the locations frequented by him. These findings were supported by the

Digital Forensics Expert, who, while observing the prescribed protocols

and standard operating procedures for cyber investigation, validated

the extraction and preservation of evidence from the device. The

integrity of the digital chain of custody, the technical evidence retrieved

from the mobile phone, and the explicit forensic linkages between the

fake Facebook accounts and the accused establish his culpability beyond

any shadow of doubt. The facts of the present case bear substantial

resemblance to the facts of that matter, wherein the applicant had

created fake Facebook IDs and uploaded obscene material with

vindictive intent. In the present case, the digital trail unmistakably leads

back to accused Nouman, whose deliberate actions amount to offences

under Sections 21 and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act,

2016, read with Sections 109 and 500 P.P.C.

16. This Court is mindful that under Section 27 of PECA, 2016, offences

committed through or in relation to information systems shall not be

denied recognition solely due to the medium of their commission. As the

evidence herein is entirely digital and unshaken in cross-examination,

and since the mobile phone remained in the exclusive use of the accused

and has been forensically linked to the impugned act, this Court finds

the conviction of the accused to be based on unimpeachable evidence.

The prosecution has fully discharged its burden and proved the case

against the accused with confidence-inspiring evidence.

17. Minor discrepancies or technical infirmities in the prosecution

case are not sufficient to discard such overwhelming evidence. The prosecution case is primarily anchored in authentic, consistent, and

independently corroborated digital evidence. Facebook logs obtained

through lawful process revealed that the images were uploaded via IP

addresses and a mobile number independently verified by PTCL and the

mobile service provider to be registered in the name of the accused. This

digital trail firmly establishes an unbroken and conclusive nexus

between the applicant and the impugned Facebook profiles.

18. This chain of evidence, lawfully procured and analyzed, withstood

scrutiny during the trial. The testimony of all prosecution witnesses was

coherent, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring. Moreover, the

applicant voluntarily confessed during the raid to having created the

fake Facebook accounts and uploading the objectionable images.

Although not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such spontaneous

admission qualifies as admissible evidence under Article 19 of the

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as a contemporaneous statement

forming part of the res gestae. The absence of any allegation of coercion

further enhances the evidentiary weight of such admission. The mobile

phone of the accused was forensically examined by certified digital

forensic experts of FIA, who recovered from it the same explicit images

as those found on the fake profiles, as well as access credentials and

screenshots corroborating operation of the accounts in question. The

defense could not refute this forensic evidence nor could it establish any

mala fide or animosity on the part of the investigating officer or forensic

experts. Their testimonies remained unchallenged and unimpeached. It

is a settled principle that in the absence of any enmity or ulterior

motive, official witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely for holding

official positions.

19. Given the nature of offences under the Prevention of Electronic

Crimes Act, 2016, which are typically committed in virtual spaces, the

requirement for traditional eye-witnesses does not apply. Such ocular

version is supported by the electronic evidence available through the

modern electronic devices and palpably not shaken by the defense in

any manner. In this context, I feel it necessary to reproduce the relevant

provision provided under the Prevention Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 as

under:-

27. Legal recognition of offences committed in relation to information

system. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law

for the time being in force, an offence under this Act or any other

law shall not be denied legal recognition and enforcement for the

sole reason of such offence being committed in relation to or

through the use of an information system.

(2) References to property in any law creating an offence in relation

to or concerning property, shall include information system and

data. 20. Electronic signature of a person is further recognized under the

provisions of the Electronic Transaction Ordinance, 2002, particularly in

Sections 3 and 7 ibid, also affirm the legal recognition and admissibility

of electronic records and signatures in the eyes of law. The said

provisions are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

3. Legal recognition of electronic forms. No document, record,

information, communication or transaction shall be denied legal

recognition, admissibility, effect, validity, proof or enforceability

on the ground that it is in electronic form and has not been

attested by any witness.

7. Legal recognition of electronic signatures: The requirement under

any law for affixation of signatures shall be deemed satisfied

where electronic signatures or advanced electronic signature are

applied.

21. In the light of above, where such evidence is cogent, credible, and

legally obtained, as in the present case, it is sufficient for sustaining a

conviction. The absence of ocular evidence is not a ground to discard

otherwise unimpeachable digital proof.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

view that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have

correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The findings are based on

sound reasoning and are fully supported by the material available. The

digital forensic evidence, the spontaneous and voluntary admission of

guilt by the applicant and thus discovery of numerous facts not in the

knowledge of anyone comes within Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat

Order, 1984 and further the consistent testimony of official witnesses,

and the failure of the defense to present any plausible rebuttal or

defense collectively establish the guilt of the applicant beyond a

reasonable doubt.

23. Accordingly, this criminal revision application, being devoid of

merit, is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused

by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Karachi South, vide judgment dated

29.01.2020, and upheld by the learned District and Sessions Judge,

Karachi South, vide judgment dated 24.11.2020, are hereby maintained.

Let the copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned courts for

information.

JK/N-36/Sindh Revision dismissed.

URLs: