DIGITAL EVIDENCE AS A SHAHADA IN PAKISTANI LAWS AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE COURTS
Abstract
Because of globalization, world is moving fast and keeping pace with the Information technology is difficult for the countries, however, this makes more difficult for developing countries to handle this situation. As for the law-makers it cannot be expected to predict for the future, therefore, legislation designed for a specific objective may fail when a new situation arises. The same situation is faced by the legal fraternity, executive, legislature and judiciary alike in Pakistan, while dealing with digital evidence when the entire previous instrument on the law of evidence does not cover many aspects of the digital evidence. This article analyze, in the light of Shari’ah that how digital evidence is seen by the Courts in Pakistan. Digital evidence is brought through expert witness, thus the role of expert witness is also examined. At the end, assessment of digital evidence by the judges is discussed and lastly online courts and recording of evidence through video conferencing is deliberated.
References
Raymond Wacks,Law A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 133.
. Maria Angela Biasiotti et al. Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe (Cham: Springer, 2018), 289.
. Article 37 (d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
. Richard Boddington, Practical Digital Forensics (Birmingham: Packt Publishing, 2016), 93.
. Ibid., 94
. Ibid.
. Thomas A. Johnson. Forensic Computer Crime Investigation (New York: CRC, 2005), 150-51.
. Amy Lynnette, “Digital and Multimedia Forensics Justified: An Appraisal on Professional Policy and Legislation,” (M.S. diss., University of Colorado Denver, 2015), 27.
. Amy Lynnette, “Digital and Multimedia Forensics Justified,” 27.
. Xandra Kramer, “Challenges of Electronic Taking of Evidence: Old Problems in a New Guise and New Problems in Disguise,” JornadasIberoamericanas de Derecho Procesal, XXVI (2018): 391-410 at 409.
. Kramer, “Challenges of Electronic Taking of Evidence,” 409.
. Amy Lynnette, “Digital and Multimedia Forensics Justified,” 29.
. Kramer, “Challenges of Electronic Taking of Evidence,” 410.
. Boddington, Practical Digital Forensics, 14.
. John R Vacca. Computer Forensics: Computer Crime Scene Investigation. 2nd ed. (Massachusetts: Charles River Media, Inc., 2005), 59.
. Vacca, Computer Forensics: Computer Crime Scene Investigation, 9.
. Mason and Seng, Electronic Evidence, 23-24.
. Vacca, Computer Forensics: Computer Crime Scene Investigation, 155.
. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
i. Whether the theory or technique can be (and has been) tested.
ii. Whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review and publication.
iii. The known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory used.
iv. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls
v. Whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community.
. Section 2(f) of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007 (Act No. XIII of 2007).
. Section 3(f) of the IFTA.
. Abdul Ghani v. State, 2007 YLR 969.
. Arif Hashwani v. Sadruddin Hashwani, PLD 2007 Karachi, 448.
. Land Acquisition Collector v. Muhammad Sultan, PLD 2014 Supreme Court 696.
. Ahmad Omar Sheikh v. State, Appeal no. 66-68/2002 in SHC decided on 02.04.2020.
. Eoghan Casey, Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, 3rd ed.(New York:Elsevier, 2011), 49.
. Casey, Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, 49.
. Ibid.
. Biasiotti et al, Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence across Europe, 382.
. https://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/d6/attachments/pages/Thomson-E-evidence-report.pdf (accessed: 30th November, 2019).
. Ibid.
. Marcella and Menendez, Cyber Forensics, 308.
. Ishtiaq Ahmad Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan, 2019 PLD SC 675.
. Boddington, Practical Digital Forensics, 86.
. Ibid., 91.
. Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007).
. Mason and Seng, Electronic Evidence, 113.
. Ali Naqi v. Government of the Punjab, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 952 Lahore.
. Muhammad Nasir v. Mahmood Shaukat Bhatti, PLD 2003 Lahore 231.
. Muhammad Akram Baloch v. Akbar Askani, 2014 CLC 878.
. Umair Ashraf v. The State, 2008 MLD 1442.
. Rehmat Shah Afridi v. The State, PLD 2004 Lahore 829.
. Sikandar Ali Lashari v. the State, 2016 YLR 62 (Sindh).
. Mason and Seng, Electronic Evidence, 61.
. Ammar Yasir Ali v. The State, 2013 PCRLJ 783. In Babar Ahmad v. The State, 2017 YLR 153, the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, accepted CCTV footage in evidence.
. Asfandyar v. Kamran, 2016 SCMR 2084.
. Government of Sindh v. Fahad Naseem, 2002 PCRLJ 1765 Karachi.
. Nazim Ali v. Additional Sessions Judge, 2016 MLD 25.
. Hashim Jamal v. the State, 2018 YLR Note 105.
. Junaid Arshad v. the State, 2018 PCrLJ 739 (Lahore).
. Zakir Hussain v. The State, 2017 PCrLJ 757. The same view was taken by the LHC in Muhammad Sadiq v. State, 2016 PCrLJ 1390, in which the LHC held that evidence recorded on CD is admissible in criminal cases.
. Muhammad Jawad Hamid v. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, 2019 PCrLJ 665 (Lahore).
. Shahid Zafar v. the State, 2015 PCrLJ 628 (Sindh).
. Muhammad Irfan v. The State, 2018 PCRLJ 1319.
. Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 SC 675.
. Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 SC 675.
. Umair Ashraf v. The State, 2008 MLD 1442 (Karachi).
. Muhammad Sadiq v. the State, 2016 PCRLJ 1390.
. Allison Rebecca Stanfield, “The Authentication of Electronic Evidence,” (Ph.D. diss., Queensland University of Technology, 2016), 181.
. Ibid.
. Ibid., 183.
. Ibid., 184.
. Ibid.
. Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2012 SC 292.
. AijazurRehman v. the State, PLD 2006 Karachi 629.
. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. the State, PLD 2018 Islamabad 148.
. Section 11 (1A) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (Act XXV of 1964).
. Salman Ahmad Khan v. Judge Family Court, PLD 2017 Lahore 698.
. Section 10 of the Punjab Witness Protection Act, 2018 (Act XXI of 2018).
. Muhammad Arif Chaudhry v. Muhammad Suleman, Civil Petition No. 1945/2018, order dated 16.04.2020.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2021 Zia e Tahqeeq
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
