Evidence Law Application In High-Profile Cases
🔹 Introduction to Evidence Law in Pakistan
Evidence law in Pakistan is primarily governed by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which replaced the earlier Evidence Act of 1872. It outlines the rules for admissibility, relevance, and reliability of evidence in both civil and criminal cases.
Key Principles:
Relevancy (Articles 17–23): Only relevant facts are admissible.
Admissibility of Hearsay: Generally excluded unless it falls under an exception.
Confession (Articles 37–43): Judicial confessions carry strong evidentiary value; extra-judicial confessions require corroboration.
Documentary Evidence (Articles 74–78): Emphasis on primary documents unless exceptions apply.
Electronic Evidence (Modern application): Admitted with proper authentication under Article 164 and PECA 2016.
Burden of Proof (Articles 117–129): Primarily lies on the prosecution in criminal cases.
Presumption and Estoppel: Courts may presume certain facts under specific conditions (Articles 129–132).
🔹 High-Profile Cases and Application of Evidence Law
1. Nawaz Sharif (Panama Papers Case) — Imran Khan v. Mian Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2017 SC 265)
Facts:
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was accused of owning undeclared offshore assets based on Panama Papers leaks.
The issue involved financial documents, conflicting statements, and unexplained wealth trails.
Evidence Issues:
Burden of Proof: Once ownership of offshore companies was admitted, the burden shifted to Nawaz Sharif to explain sources (Article 122).
Documentary Evidence: Trust deeds, financial documents, and public statements were used.
Electronic Evidence: Digital data from the Panama Papers was considered admissible under Article 164.
Held:
The court held that Nawaz Sharif had failed to justify the ownership and income trail for London properties.
Disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution for being dishonest.
Importance:
Set precedent on burden-shifting under Article 122 when the accused fails to explain possession of disproportionate assets.
Affirmed admissibility of electronic and foreign-origin documents.
*2. Benazir Bhutto Assassination Case — State v. Pervez Musharraf & Others (ATC Rawalpindi, 2010–2017)
Facts:
Former PM Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in 2007. General Pervez Musharraf and others were accused of negligence and conspiracy.
Evidence Issues:
Forensic Evidence: Mobile call data records (CDRs), explosive residue, and autopsy reports.
Confessional Statements: Confession of suicide bombers' handlers.
Documentary and Official Reports: UN investigation report and JIT findings were used.
Held:
Musharraf was declared a proclaimed offender due to non-appearance.
Lower-level police officials were convicted for negligence based on documentary and testimonial evidence.
Importance:
Highlighted chain-of-custody importance in forensic evidence.
Demonstrated limited reliance on confessions without independent corroboration.
3. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Case — Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 SC 53)
Facts:
Bhutto, former PM, was convicted for conspiracy to murder Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Khan.
A highly controversial trial.
Evidence Issues:
Eyewitness Testimony: Sole reliance on statements of co-accused (turned approver).
Confession of Accomplices: Article 43 – value of accomplice testimony without corroboration.
Bias in Trial Process: Allegations of judicial and political bias.
Held:
Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence based primarily on approver testimony.
Importance:
Widely criticized for violating the standard of proof and rules of fair trial.
Legal scholars argue it failed to meet the requirement of corroborated testimony under Article 129(g).
4. Model Town Incident Case (2014) — PAT v. State (Trial Ongoing)
Facts:
Clash between police and Pakistan Awami Tehreek supporters resulted in the killing of 14 civilians.
Evidence Issues:
Video Evidence: CCTV footage and cell phone recordings.
Medical & Forensic Evidence: Ballistic reports and autopsy findings.
Official Documents: JIT reports, call logs of officers.
Application of Law:
Court has accepted video evidence under Article 164, which allows modern evidence not specified in the QSO.
Question of admissibility of biased investigation reports under scrutiny.
Importance:
Case is testing the reliability of state investigation when state officials are the accused.
Sets tone for electronic evidence admissibility and public interest litigation.
5. Salman Taseer Murder Case — State v. Mumtaz Qadri (PLD 2016 SC 17)
Facts:
Governor Punjab Salman Taseer was assassinated by his bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri, for alleged blasphemy support.
Evidence Issues:
Judicial Confession: Qadri confessed to the killing in open court.
Intention and Motive: Defence argued lack of criminal intent.
Use of Religious Justification: Not legally relevant under QSO.
Held:
The Supreme Court rejected the religious justification as irrelevant to the question of legal guilt.
Upheld the confession as voluntary and judicial, hence admissible under Article 37.
Importance:
Clarified that moral or religious motivations are not legal defences under criminal law.
Reinforced value of judicial confession as primary evidence.
*6. Axact Fake Degree Case — FIA v. Shoaib Sheikh (2015–2022, ATC Karachi & SHC)
Facts:
The CEO of Axact was accused of running a fake degree and diploma scam across the globe.
Evidence Issues:
Electronic Evidence: Emails, websites, databases, and servers used in operations.
International Evidence: Testimonies and digital logs from foreign clients and agencies.
Confessional Statements: Of employees and insiders.
Application of Law:
Qanun-e-Shahadat Article 164 was used to admit digital evidence.
Courts required proper authentication and chain of custody for data.
Held:
After years of trial, convictions were made based on admissible electronic and testimonial evidence.
Importance:
Landmark in dealing with cybercrime and digital fraud.
Reinforced standards for electronic document authenticity.
*7. Daniel Pearl Case — State v. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (PLD 2021 SC 62)
Facts:
Sheikh was convicted of kidnapping and murdering American journalist Daniel Pearl.
Evidence Issues:
Confessional Statements: Under question for voluntariness.
Witness Testimony: Reliability and contradiction in key witnesses.
Digital Evidence: Emails and video footage.
Held:
Supreme Court acquitted the accused, citing lack of admissible and convincing evidence.
Ruled that prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Importance:
Sparked international criticism, but reaffirmed the principle of proof and right to fair trial.
Emphasized evidentiary gaps, particularly with tainted or uncorroborated confessions.
🔹 Summary of Legal Principles Applied
| Principle | Case(s) | Legal Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Burden of Proof Shifting | Panama Papers Case | Article 122 QSO |
| Value of Judicial Confession | Salman Taseer Case | Articles 37–43 QSO |
| Reliability of Accomplice Testimony | Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Case | Article 129(g) QSO |
| Admissibility of Electronic Evidence | Axact, Model Town, Panama Papers | Article 164 QSO, PECA 2016 |
| Chain of Custody for Forensics | Benazir Bhutto Case, Axact Case | Evidentiary standards under Article 78 QSO |
| Fair Trial and Right to Defence | Daniel Pearl, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto | Article 10-A Constitution |
🔹 Conclusion
In high-profile cases in Pakistan, courts have:
Rigorously applied rules of admissibility, especially regarding confessions, digital evidence, and documentary evidence.
Upheld the burden of proof and stressed the need for corroboration, especially in politically sensitive or public-interest cases.
Evolved jurisprudence on electronic and forensic evidence, adapting QSO principles to modern realities.
Reaffirmed the **constitutional rights
RELATED Blog
0 comments