Audio/Video/Pictures obtained from Punjab Safe City Authority maintain different regime for their admissibility in evidence.

Coming back to video evidence contained in CD (P-1), it is noteworthy that no certificate of expert was tendered in evidence nor an expert appeared in the witness box to verify the sanctity/ genuineness of the aforementioned video. It was also incumbent to get a photogrammetry test of accused/appellants from PFSA in order to provide evidence that they are the person visible in video retrieved from CCTV footage. Moreover, neither the Court has examined such CD while playing it in the Court nor it was shown to any witness during his statement who could have identified the assailants in the video. PW-12 investigating officer conceded to this effect in following words;

“Video contained in CD is not being played at the moment in the court room”

Thus, trial Court has not met the requirement of Article 71 & 139 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 because CCTV footage can be used either as the documentary evidence or the real evidence. When it is being used as documentary evidence it must be shown to the witness while recording his statement and when it is used as real evidence then court must inspect it with some observations and mere marking it as “P” does not fulfill the requirement. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the contents of CD in accordance with the principles of evidence.

It is now well settled that photographs can be used as evidence yet it is essential to prove its source.

In the cases of “MAQSOOD ALAM and another Versus The STATE and others” (2024 SCMR 156), “ABDUL QADEER Versus The STATE” (2024 SCMR 1146), “MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ BAIG and another Versus The STATE through Prosecutor General, Punjab, Lahore and another” (2024 SCMR 1191), “MUHAMMAD HASSAN and another Versus The STATE and others” (2024 SCMR 1427), “KHIAL MUHAMMAD Versus The STATE” (2024 SCMR 1490) & “MUHAMMAD IJAZ alias BILLA and another Versus The STATE and others” (2024 SCMR 1507), the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that for giving benefit of doubt to an accused a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused is sufficient to make him entitled to such benefit.