2022 CLC 1337
Automated information system---Printout of email---Primary evidence---Proof---Printout of an email is output of Digital system created for generating, sending, receiving, storing, reproducing, displaying, recording, processing messages without active human intervention, therefore, constitutes primary evidence pursuant to Art. 73 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, except where automated information system is proved not to have been in working condition at material times
2020 CLC 1029
S.25---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Preamble---Petition for custody of a minor---Additional evidence, production of---Requirements---E-mail or other Digital Communications---Evidentiary value---Scope---Confronting witness with his earlier statement---Scope---Application for production and confrontation of e-mail to the witness was dismissed on the ground that same was not annexed or mentioned in the pleadings---Validity---Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable to the proceedings before Family Court but basic principle for recording evidence should be considered---Family Court could adopt any procedure which was not expressly barred or prohibited by law---Cross-examination was a litmus test of the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness on oath in examination-in-chief---Party conducting cross-examination could ask leading questions and confront the witness with previous statements whether same pertained to some other proceedings or event, subject to relevancy with the issue---E-mail or other Digital communication of a witness might be treated as previous statement and confronted during cross-examination---Defendant in a family suit had to disclose all the documents relied by him---E-mail was a form of documentary evidence and same could be admitted as evidence---Measures were to be taken to protect the integrity and authenticity of email by Digital signature and encryption---Reliability of email or other electronically generated documents might be subject to attack but a party could not be restrained to present it in the Court as a documentary evidence---If e-mails or other Digital documents were generated or originated by a witness then same could be confronted to him during his cross-examination---Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside, in circumstances---Petitioner might confront the respondent in the witness box during cross-examination with all the Digital ly created and communicated documents by her through email or social media, subject to relevancy of the same---
PLD 2019 Lahore 366
Art. 164---Production of evidence of modern device---Scope---Said Article had revolutionized the scope to accommodate modern innovative techniques to secure, preserve and reproduce the information, hitherto unavailable---Said provision of law independently provided a wide mechanism to bring on record evidence through visual, audio, Digital , sonic or biological and other means on the basis of information capable to establish or negate any fact in issue, certainly subject to integrity of the procedure/process, duly qualified in the case.
Rape committed by two or more persons in furtherance of common intention, cyber stalking---Appreciation of evidence---"Consent" and "submission" by victim---Analysed---Prosecution case was that the accused persons committed rape with the daughter of the complainant and captured the incident on a cell phone camera---Prosecution had relied upon video footage, film prepared by the accused graphically capturing the assault upon the prosecutrix---Hand phone sets, memory cards as well as subscriber identity module secured during the course of investigation dispatched to Forensic Science Laboratory, the report of which confirmed the integrity of video footage-Video was played in the court in the presence of accused persons---Accused were unmistakably featured while assaulting the prosecutrix, one by one, in a manner nauscatic and abhorrent---Digital ly generated evidence through the automated process stored in memory card was not amenable to human interference, as confirmed by forensic analysis---Sciences did not perjure-Contents of the footage were confronted, the accused had nothing to offer in their defence-Memory card established the culpability in terms ot Art. 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, leaving no space to entertain any hypotheses of mistaken identity or their innocence---Alleged consent of prosecutrix was outrangeously scandalous to say the least-Every consent involves a submission but the converse does not follow and a mere act of submission does not involve consent---Prosecutrix was on way when intercepted and taken to a nearly place in a rural neighbourhood---Circumstances suggested that it was inconceivable that she would consent for the treatment meted out to her in a most tormenting manner and would also countenance while its detail being captured by the accused, which was certainly not expected from unmarried girl in her early twenty from a rural neighbourhood to be a willing object of a most repugnant exposure and ridicule---Circumstances established that Trial Court had rightly placed implicit reliance on the prosecution evidence so as to return a guilty verdict, therefore, no interference was called for-
0 Comments