CCTV and USB Evidence Must Be Properly Authenticated, LHC Rules

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The ruling in one sentence

The Lahore High Court has held that a murder conviction cannot stand where the eyewitness account fails the tests of presence, visibility, identification and natural conduct, while the physical, forensic and digital material lacks the authentication and chain of custody needed to connect the accused with the crime.

In Muhammad Farhan v The State, Criminal Appeal No. 40490-J of 2023, read with Murder Reference No. 111 of 2023, a Division Bench comprising Justice Amir Ajam Malik and Justice Farooq Haider set aside a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Court acquitted the appellant, ordered his release if not required in another case, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

The judgment is important beyond its facts. It brings together recurring principles governing delayed postmortem examinations, chance witnesses, identification, medical evidence, recovery and safe custody of physical exhibits, DNA results, CCTV footage, electronic evidence and the benefit of doubt in Pakistani criminal trials.

How the case began

The prosecution alleged that Muhammad Farhan struck Amjad Ali with an iron rod at a factory in Faisalabad on the morning of 24 September 2022. FIR No. 971 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Nishatabad under Sections 302 and 34 PPC.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad convicted the appellant on 30 March 2023 under Section 302(b) PPC, sentenced him to death and directed payment of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

The appellant challenged the conviction. Because a death sentence requires confirmation by the High Court, his appeal and the connected murder reference were decided together.

A prompt FIR must be tested against the whole record

On paper, the FIR appeared to have been recorded at 8:45 a.m., shortly after the stated occurrence at 7:15 a.m. The surrounding evidence, however, raised a different picture.

The dead body reached the mortuary at 11:00 a.m., but the complete police papers arrived only at 7:00 p.m. and the postmortem began at 7:15 p.m. The prosecution offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay. More importantly, the complainant stated during evidence that two earlier applications had not been approved and that the FIR was registered at about 5:00 p.m.

He also said the application was drafted and presented at the police station, contrary to the prosecution version that it was handed to the investigating officer at the scene.

The Court treated these circumstances as indicating deliberation and ante-timing. The point is not that every delayed postmortem automatically invalidates an FIR. The legal inquiry is whether unexplained delay, late police papers and contradictory testimony undermine the claimed promptness and spontaneity of the prosecution account in the particular case.

Chance witnesses must explain why they were present

The two eyewitnesses were the deceased's son and brother. Their relationship with the deceased did not by itself disqualify them. The central problem was their unexplained presence at a factory where they neither lived nor worked.

The site plan, the investigating officer and the draftsman confirmed that the witnesses had no residence, business or employment inside or near the factory. The complainant admitted that he and his uncle had no work there. Their explanations about why they went to the factory also did not correspond with each other or with the first information supplied to police.

The Court therefore treated them as chance witnesses. Under the settled rule, a witness who would not ordinarily be at the scene must give a plausible and convincing explanation for being there at the relevant time. Without that foundation, the testimony becomes suspect and requires careful scrutiny rather than automatic acceptance.

Visibility, identification and conduct weakened the ocular account

The complainant said the witnesses stood outside the factory gate while the incident occurred inside. The second witness acknowledged that the gate was six or seven feet high and that a person standing outside could not see inside the factory.

That admission directly affected the claimed opportunity to observe the assault and identify the attacker.

The complainant also admitted that the appellant was previously unknown to him. The record did not explain who supplied the appellant's name or how the witness identified a stranger. Where identity is disputed, the prosecution must establish the route by which an unknown accused was identified; a name appearing in the FIR cannot replace that proof.

The Court also found the witnesses' conduct unnatural. They claimed to have watched the deceased receive repeated blows from a man carrying only an iron rod, yet made no attempt to intervene, raise an effective alarm or rescue him. The deceased himself was said to have had a 12-bore repeater. Conduct must always be assessed in context, but the unexplained passivity added to the other doubts about whether the witnesses were present.

Taken together, the unexplained presence, obstructed view, missing identification link, contradictions and conduct meant that the ocular account was not confidence-inspiring.

Medical evidence cannot identify the assailant

The judgment reaffirms the limited but important role of medical evidence. A doctor may establish the location, nature and severity of injuries, the probable weapon and the interval between injury and death. Medical evidence may support a reliable ocular account.

It ordinarily cannot identify the person who caused the injuries. Once the eyewitness account was discarded, the postmortem findings could not independently connect Muhammad Farhan with the homicide.

This distinction matters in every criminal trial. Proof that a person died violently is not the same as proof that the accused caused the death.

Motive was alleged but not proved

The FIR alleged a dispute over money between the deceased and the appellant. The prosecution did not establish the amount, the transaction, the demand, the alleged quarrel or any witness who observed it.

The complainant admitted that the earlier quarrel did not occur in his presence, the second witness said he knew nothing about the motive, and the investigating officer confirmed that no supporting material was produced.

Motive is not always indispensable where direct evidence is otherwise reliable. Here, however, failure to prove the alleged motive removed another possible link from an already doubtful prosecution case.

Recovery and chain of custody must be coherent

The prosecution relied on an iron rod and other items said to have been secured from the scene. Its own crime-scene witness did not testify that he recovered an iron rod. He described swabs from metallic stands, one pipe and other samples. Yet the recovery memo referred to a sealed parcel containing a metallic rod and did not bear the crime-scene official's signature.

The site plan did not record the presence or seizure of an iron rod. The documents also did not satisfactorily explain how stained and unstained swabs from such a rod later reached the forensic laboratory.

The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove recovery, safe custody and safe transmission. A forensic report cannot cure an unexplained break at the beginning of the evidentiary chain. The prosecution must first establish what was recovered, by whom, from where, how it was sealed, who retained it and how it reached the laboratory without substitution or contamination.

A DNA match needs a meaningful factual link

A partial DNA profile from an iron stand was a mixture from at least three people, including the deceased and the appellant. Both men worked at the same factory, and the eyewitnesses had not alleged use of that stand in the assault.

The Court therefore found that the mixture did not provide a meaningful incriminating link. A scientific result must be interpreted within its factual setting. A person's DNA on a shared workplace object may be fully consistent with innocent contact, especially where the alleged weapon, use of the object and custody of the sample are not independently proved.

CCTV and USB evidence require authentication

The complainant produced a USB on 7 October 2022, nearly two weeks after the occurrence, claiming that it contained CCTV footage. The investigation did not secure the cameras, the DVR or the original recording. Neither the FIR nor the site plan mentioned a camera, and no factory official proved that cameras were installed and working at the relevant place and time.

The person who extracted or copied the footage was not produced. The USB was not sent for forensic analysis to test genuineness, editing or tampering. Reference images or controlled recordings were not supplied for reliable comparison and identification. The source, preparation and safe custody of the file also remained unproved.

Applying the principles stated by the Supreme Court in Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 675), the High Court held that the USB had no legal worth in these circumstances.

The durable rule is that electronic evidence is not self-proving. A party relying on CCTV or video should ordinarily establish:

• that the recording system existed and was functioning;
• that the exhibit is the original recording or an accurately produced copy;
• who recorded, extracted or copied it and by what process;
• that the material is genuine and free from tampering or editing;
• the identity of relevant persons, voices, objects and locations;
• relevance, admissibility and production according to law; and
• an intact chain of custody from creation or extraction to court.

Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 permits the court to receive evidence made available by modern devices, but it does not dispense with authenticity, relevance and proof.

One reasonable doubt is enough

The prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to establish innocence or demonstrate several independent defects.

Here, the Court found multiple material doubts: the timing and preparation of the FIR, unexplained delay in police papers and postmortem, the witnesses' presence and visibility, identification of a previously unknown accused, unproved motive, inconsistent physical recovery, broken custody, limited DNA significance and unauthenticated video material.

Because the prosecution had not established a reliable case, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the defence version. The benefit of doubt followed as a legal right, not as a concession.

The final order

The Lahore High Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 40490-J of 2023. It set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted Muhammad Farhan and ordered his immediate release unless required in another case.

The connected Murder Reference No. 111 of 2023 was answered in the negative, meaning that the death sentence was not confirmed.

The judgment was pronounced on 10 September 2026, signed on 11 September 2026 and approved for reporting.

Practical lessons for criminal cases

For investigators, the judgment emphasizes early preservation of original digital devices, accurate scene documentation, signed recovery records, independent witnesses where available, sealed exhibits and a traceable custody trail.

For prosecutors, scientific or electronic material should not be presented as an isolated technical result. Each exhibit must be connected to the crime, the accused and a legally proved source.

For defence counsel, the correct analysis moves through each evidentiary link: presence, opportunity to observe, identification, prompt reporting, medical support, recovery, safe custody, laboratory receipt, digital authenticity and the innocent explanations consistent with the result.

For trial courts, the cumulative picture matters. A formally prompt FIR, a medical report, a DNA reference or a USB label cannot be assessed in isolation from contradictions about when, where and how the underlying evidence came into existence.

Limits of the ruling

The judgment does not hold that related witnesses are inherently unreliable, that every delayed postmortem requires acquittal, or that CCTV and DNA evidence are weak forms of proof.

Its broader principle is that every category of evidence must be proved according to its legal character. Eyewitness testimony requires a credible opportunity to be present, observe and identify. Physical evidence requires recovery and continuity. Scientific results require a proved source and relevant interpretation. Digital evidence requires authenticity, identification and safe custody.

Where those links are missing and reasonable doubt remains, even a conviction for the gravest offence cannot lawfully stand.

This commentary is independent legal analysis for research and general information. The complete judgment, current statutory text, trial record and later judicial treatment should be checked before reliance in proceedings.