CCTV Footage as Evidence in Pakistan: LHC Acquits Life-Convict as Video Contradicts Eyewitnesses (Raja Shahid v. The State, 2026)

On 16 October 2026 the Lahore High Court set aside a life sentence for murder because the prosecution’s own CCTV video told a different story from its eyewitnesses. In Raja Shahid v. The State (Criminal Appeal No. 27357 of 2024, 2026 LHC 7319), Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq used the appeal to answer six important questions on CCTV footage as evidence in Pakistan: when it is admissible, how it must be put to the accused, whether it can be “enhanced”, whether the court can visit the scene, and whether a conviction can rest on video alone. The judgment has been approved for reporting and will matter in almost every criminal trial where a camera recorded the occurrence.

Key Takeaways

• CCTV footage is documentary (electronic) evidence. It must be produced through a witness, and its incriminating parts must be put specifically to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. A vague question such as “What do you say about the video evidence?” is not enough.
• After the 2023 amendment, the Court read Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 as mainly a procedural provision about recording evidence through modern devices; admissibility of video now flows from the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 and Articles 46A, 73 and 78A QSO.
• Where the trial court failed to confront the accused with the video, the appellate court can cure the defect by calling the accused and witnesses. Mere clarification of footage already on record is not “additional evidence” under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
• Pixel enhancement is permissible but should be done in a forensic laboratory (PFSA), not live in the courtroom. The court may itself compare the footage with the accused (“trier-of-fact comparison”).
• The Punjab Government was directed to equip the PFSA with missing techniques such as gait analysis and photogrammetry; until then, footage may be sent to a competent international laboratory at the parties’ expense.
• A conviction can rest on video alone, but only if the footage is authentic and clear enough to identify the accused and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. If faces cannot be identified, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

The Case at a Glance

Background: What Happened

According to the prosecution, on 18 September 2022 the victim was picked up from his house on a motorcycle. In front of the appellant’s house, a co-accused allegedly raised a lalkara and the appellant fired repeatedly at the victim’s head, then fled with the victim’s motorcycle, phone and purse. The motive alleged was a quarrel three days earlier. The trial court believed the eyewitnesses and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment.

The problem was the street CCTV camera. Its footage had been played at trial, but none of the eyewitnesses appeared anywhere in it. The only person seen arriving was a young girl who came about three minutes after the attackers had left. The shooter’s face was not discernible, the trial court made no comparison of build or features, and the accused was asked only one general question about the video in his Section 342 statement.

Six Questions the High Court Framed

Rather than deciding on the defects alone, the Court framed six questions of law and appointed Ms. Sheeba Qaiser, ASC, and Mr. Naveed Umar Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General, as amici curiae. The Prosecutor General Punjab and the Director General of the Punjab Forensic Science Authority (PFSA) also assisted. The questions were:

1. What is the minimum legal requirement for admitting PFSA-certified, untampered footage from a privately installed CCTV camera?
2. If the trial court plays the footage but does not confront the accused or witnesses, can the appellate court call them?
3. Would that be “additional evidence” under Section 428 Cr.P.C. or merely an inquiry?
4. Can unclear footage be pixel-enhanced by an expert in open court, and if not, what is the alternative?
5. Can the court inspect the crime scene and question locals under Section 539B Cr.P.C., and can it delegate this to a commission?
6. If the video excludes the eyewitnesses, can a conviction rest on the video alone after the 2023 amendment to Article 164 QSO?

What the Lahore High Court Held

1. Admissibility: Article 164 after 2023 and the ETO 2002

Before 2023, Article 164 QSO allowed the court to admit “any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques”. The amended Article now speaks of evidence or witnesses recorded by the Court through modern devices such as video call, WhatsApp, Skype or video conference. The Court observed that the amendment shifts the focus from admissibility of technology-generated evidence to the recording of evidence through technology, so Article 164 now operates mainly as a procedural provision.

Video therefore stands as documentary evidence in electronic form. Its legal recognition comes from Section 3 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 (no document is denied admissibility merely because it is electronic), with “information” including video under Section 2(o). Under Article 73 QSO an electronic document is primary evidence if the information system was in working order, which is presumed unless shown otherwise; under Article 46A such electronic statements are relevant facts; and under Article 78A, if genuineness is denied, the security procedure must be proved.

In practice, the Court laid down that the footage must be produced through a relevant witness, put to witnesses for explanation of identity and circumstances (including under Article 22 QSO where attracted), and put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Where authenticity is disputed, the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675) must be followed.

2 & 3. Can the appellate court cure the trial court’s omission?

Yes. Where the trial court did not follow the proper procedure, the appellate court may summon the witnesses and the accused. The Court drew a useful distinction:

• Clarifying facts seen in footage already admitted is not additional evidence under Section 428 Cr.P.C.; it is an inquiry to understand the observed facts.
• Footage never collected or brought on record can be summoned under Sections 428, 94 and 540 Cr.P.C. The High Court may record the evidence itself or direct a Magistrate or Court of Session to record it, and may issue a search warrant under Section 96 Cr.P.C. to trace it.

On the mode of recording, the Court referred to Section 365 Cr.P.C. and the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders (Volume V, Chapter 4, Part I-A): the Judge may make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence, or have it taken down in shorthand by an officer of the Court.

4. Pixel enhancement and identification

Unclear footage can be enhanced by experts through contrast, brightness and gamma adjustment, histogram equalisation, super-resolution, sharpening and deconvolution, noise reduction, interpolation and frame averaging. But because this needs specialised equipment, validated methods and documented SOPs, it should be done in a forensic laboratory, with the processed output then played before the court. The DG PFSA stressed that enhancement can only reveal what already exists in the recording; it cannot create new detail.

Where image quality allows, the court may itself compare the video with the accused in open court — a “trier-of-fact comparison” — relying on the rationale of Article 84 QSO (comparison of handwriting, signatures and fingerprints) and the English case Parish v. R [2021] EWCA Crim 1693. If that is inconclusive, the court may direct the PFSA to use forensic facial comparison, gait analysis, clothing comparison, photogrammetry, body morphology, behavioural analysis or voice analysis.

Because the PFSA told the Court that gait analysis, photogrammetry and body-morphology analysis are not yet available, the Court directed the Government of the Punjab to equip the PFSA with these techniques. Until then, the court may refer footage to a competent international forensic laboratory at the parties’ expense, with safeguards for integrity and chain of custody.

5. Local inspection and commissions

The power to inspect the place of occurrence under Section 539B Cr.P.C. is personal to the court and cannot be delegated (Asfandyar v. Kamran, 2016 SCMR 2084), though the High Court may exercise it at the appellate stage. Accepting the DPG’s suggestion, the Court held that when acting as an appellate criminal court it may, exceptionally and for recorded reasons, direct further investigation or appoint a person or commission to inspect the scene, using Section 423 and its inherent powers under Section 561A Cr.P.C. This must not become a back-door delegation of the Section 539B function or a way around investigation safeguards.

6. Can a conviction rest on video alone?

Yes, in principle. The Court relied on the “silent witness” doctrine endorsed by the Supreme Court in Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State (PLD 2026 SC 251), under which authenticated footage can “speak for itself”. It also recognised the business-records idea under Articles 46(2) and 48 QSO and the Explanations to Article 73: footage from, for example, a public office’s CCTV with system logs and metadata showing date, time and location satisfies the requirements for electronic documents.

But video is circumstantial evidence, so the full chain must be proved. A conviction on footage alone is safe only when (a) its quality reliably identifies the accused, (b) its integrity is established — where disputed, through a PFSA report that it is not tampered or edited — and (c) together with the surrounding circumstances it excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. If the face cannot be identified and enhancement fails, the footage cannot fill the gap on suspicion, and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused (Muhammad Ramzan v. The State, 2025 SCMR 1742). The decisive question is not whether the eyewitnesses appear in the frame, but whether the video forms an authentic, complete and conclusive chain of guilt.

How the Appeal Was Decided

On 28 September 2026 the appellant and two prosecution witnesses were called and shown the footage in court. The appellant identified the house as his own, said the shooter in black shalwar kameez was a co-accused who had already been acquitted, and admitted that he had kicked the victim after he fell, claiming he did not know the victim had been shot. Both witnesses named the appellant as the shooter but admitted they did not appear in the video.

The Court found serious contradictions. The witnesses said the shooter stayed at the scene threatening them, but the video showed the man in black did not linger. At trial they said the appellant escaped as the pillion rider, but the video showed the pillion rider was the shorter man in shirt and trousers. The post-mortem showed only two through-and-through wounds to the head, inflicted while the victim was still on the motorcycle, with no injury from shots fired after he fell.

Making its own trier-of-fact comparison, the Court noted that the appellant’s stature resembled the shorter man who kicked the victim, not the shooter. Still, it held that a partial admission and general physical similarity, without an expert facial comparison or strong corroboration, could not prove murder beyond reasonable doubt. Since one reasonable doubt is enough, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released if not required in any other case.

Practical Guidance for the Public

If a crime is captured on a camera at your home, shop, office or street, the following steps (our practical advice, drawn from the principles in this judgment) can make the difference between a case that succeeds and one that fails:

• Act fast. Most DVR/NVR systems overwrite footage within days. Ask the owner to preserve it immediately.
• Keep the original. Hand the DVR or an exact copy to the police against a written recovery memo. Do not edit, crop, add captions or forward it through WhatsApp as your only copy — compression and editing damage evidential value.
• Record who, when and how. Note the camera owner’s name, the system’s location, the date/time settings and who extracted the footage. These people may be needed as witnesses.
• Insist on PFSA examination. A PFSA report on authenticity (no tampering) and, where needed, enhancement strengthens the case.
• Tell the truth about what you saw. If the camera shows you were not at the spot, a claim to be an eyewitness can destroy the whole prosecution — as happened here.

Checklist for Defence Counsel

• Check whether the footage was produced through a witness and whether its source, extraction and chain of custody are proved.
• Check whether each incriminating frame or circumstance was specifically put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C.; a general question is a ground of appeal.
• Compare the footage against the ocular account: presence of witnesses, sequence of events, roles, escape route, clothing and build.
• Where faces are not discernible and there is no expert comparison, rely on Muhammad Ramzan (2025 SCMR 1742) and Fazal Mehmood (2026 SCMR 350).
• Remember the risk: once the accused is called before the appellate court and shown the footage, his answers can be used. Here the appellant admitted presence and kicking. Prepare the client carefully.

Checklist for Prosecutors and Complainant’s Counsel

• Collect footage early with a recovery memo, metadata and the camera owner as a witness; obtain a PFSA authenticity report.
• Ensure the footage is put to the eyewitnesses during examination and to the accused, frame by frame where relevant, in his Section 342 statement.
• Where faces are unclear, request PFSA enhancement and forensic facial or clothing comparison before the trial ends.
• Do not set up eyewitnesses whose presence the video contradicts. The Court accepted that an eyewitness should not be disbelieved merely for being outside the camera frame, but where the video shows events inconsistent with their account, the ocular evidence will collapse.

Points Open for Argument

Lawyers should note the limits of this ruling. It is a single-Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court; Supreme Court authority such as Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza and Zahir Zakir Jaffar will control where there is any conflict. The reading of the amended Article 164 as procedural is likely to be argued in future cases. Appointment of a commission in criminal proceedings is not an expressly codified mechanism, and the Court itself confined it to exceptional cases with recorded reasons. Finally, the Court’s own visual comparison helped explain the doubt here, but it cannot replace expert evidence on technical identification.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is CCTV footage admissible as evidence in Pakistan?

Yes. It is treated as an electronic document under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 and Articles 46A, 73 and 78A of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, provided it is produced through a witness and its authenticity is established where disputed.

Can someone be convicted only on the basis of a video?

Yes, if the video is authentic, clearly identifies the accused and, with the other circumstances, rules out every reasonable possibility of innocence. If faces are unclear and cannot be enhanced, the accused gets the benefit of doubt.

What happens if the accused was never asked about the video at trial?

The video cannot fairly be used against him unless each incriminating part is put to him. The appellate court may call the accused and witnesses to cure the omission, as the High Court did in this case.

Can the court enhance a blurry CCTV video?

Yes, through forensic experts, preferably in the PFSA laboratory rather than live in court. Enhancement can only clarify detail already in the recording; it cannot create a face that the camera never captured.

Conclusion

Raja Shahid v. The State is a strong reminder that a camera can either prove a case or expose it. Courts will now expect video evidence to be collected properly, proved through witnesses, forensically checked and fairly put to the accused. For families of victims, the lesson is to preserve footage quickly and honestly; for the accused, it is that un-confronted or unclear video cannot be the basis of a conviction; and for lawyers on both sides, it is that the handling of digital evidence can now decide the outcome of a murder trial.

If you or a family member are facing a criminal case in which CCTV or video evidence is involved, see our bail and criminal defence services, or hire a lawyer for your appeal or trial before the Lahore High Court and subordinate courts.

About the Author
Muhammad Shafique Baloch, Advocate High Court, has practised law in Lahore since 2006, handling criminal appeals, bail, constitutional, family, civil, banking and immigration matters before the Lahore High Court and subordinate courts.
Office: Office No. 3, Basement, Miccop Centre, 1 Mozang Road, Near AG Office Chowk / Lahore High Court, Lahore
WhatsApp / Phone: 0321-4960782

Disclaimer: This article is for general information and legal awareness only and is not legal advice. The facts of every case differ; please consult a qualified lawyer about your own matter. Source: Lahore High Court judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 27357 of 2024 (2026 LHC 7319), available on the LHC website.