Can a call recording be used as evidence in court?

Key points

• The law lets a court allow evidence that comes from modern devices such as phones and cameras (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, Article 164). It is the court's choice, and the recording must still be proved like any other evidence (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 11).
• No audio tape or video can be relied on until it is proved genuine and not tampered with. Without a forensic examination it is more and more unsafe to rely on one, because voices and pictures are easy to edit (PLD 2019 SC 675, paras 8 and 11).
• For CCTV the Supreme Court asks two things: how the video was obtained, and a forensic report showing it was not altered. Footage that passes both needs no other evidence to back it up (PLD 2026 SC 251, paras 9 and 16).
• In 2026 SCMR 350 the CCTV failed: nothing linked the camera to the place, no proof it recorded without a break or that its clock was right, no proof it was free from edits, no forensic report, too unclear to identify anyone, and the USB showed a virus in court. With the rest of the case weak too, the man was acquitted (paras 7 to 12).
• For your own recording: keep the original phone, do not cut or edit it, the person who recorded it should come to court, ask for a forensic test, and bring it early with a formal application (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 11).

Can a call recording be used as evidence in court?

Yes, it can be. Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 lets a court allow evidence that has become available because of modern devices or techniques, such as phones and cameras. But that only opens the door. The recording must then be proved in the ordinary way, like any other evidence (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 11).

The Supreme Court gave the reason in 2019: technology has made it "very convenient and easy to edit, doctor, superimpose or photoshop a voice or picture", so without a forensic examination it is more and more unsafe to rely on an audio tape or video. In a criminal case, any realistic doubt that a recording is genuine may destroy its value (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 8).

Karachi, 2015: the case

One night in November 2015, a man was killed in Room No. 4 of a mosque and madrassah in Karachi, a room shared by some 25 students. He was hit on the head with a cement block. A man whose bed was near his was named as the accused (FIR 314/2015, Police Station Bahadurabad; 2026 SCMR 350, paras 2 and 8).

There was no eyewitness. The case rested on circumstances: a witness had seen the accused in the room that night, he could not be found for about a year and was declared a proclaimed offender before he surrendered, a knife was found under his pillow, and the police produced a CCTV video on a USB (paras 2, 3, 6 and 10).

The trial court in Karachi East convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death on 8 November 2019. The Sindh High Court kept the conviction but changed the sentence to life imprisonment on 5 April 2021 (para 1).

What the Supreme Court found wrong with the video

On 27 October 2025 Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan heard his petition. On the CCTV, the Court found that no site plan matched the camera's view with the place of the crime, that nothing showed the recording ran without a break or that its clock was right, that nothing showed it was free from edits, and that there was no forensic report on whether it was genuine (para 7).

Even on its face the footage did not help: its picture quality, angles and lighting did not allow anyone to be identified beyond reasonable doubt, and it showed neither the act nor the weapon (para 7). One witness said it showed the accused carrying only a heavy thing that could not be made out in the dark; others called it a cement block. And whenever the USB was played, the court computer flagged it as infected with a virus (para 9).

The rest of the case was weak too. Being seen in a room shared by about 25 people proved little; the knife had blood on it, but the injuries came from a heavy object, not a blade; and no motive was proved (paras 8, 10 and 11). The Court gave him the benefit of the doubt, acquitted him and ordered his release unless he was held in another case (para 12).

The Supreme Court's test for a recording (for law students and lawyers)

The leading case is Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 SC 675, decided on 23 August 2019 by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Umar Ata Bandial. After reviewing the earlier cases, the Court listed what courts insist on before an audio tape or a video is relied on (para 11). In short:

Genuine and accurate: it must be proved genuine and not tampered with, its accuracy proved, and the chance of tampering ruled out by direct or circumstantial evidence. It must be the actual record of the conversation or event as it happened.

The person who recorded it: he has to be produced as a witness, produce the recording himself and identify the voices or people in it; others who were present may also testify. The person recording should not be someone who recorded it to lay a trap to get evidence.

In court: it must be played in court, be clearly audible or visible, be relevant, and come in through a formal application. Its source, and the date the person producing it acquired it, must be disclosed; its safe custody from the time it was made must be proved; any transcript must be made under independent supervision. A recording produced late in a case may be looked at with suspicion.

The lab: a forensic report by an analyst of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency is admissible in evidence on its own, under section 9(3) of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act 2007 (para 11).

For CCTV the Court has since put the core in two steps: an explanation of how the video was obtained, or its source, and a forensic report showing that it has not been altered (PLD 2026 SC 251, para 9, drawing on State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh, 2021 SCMR 873). Footage that passes both is primary evidence and needs no corroboration (para 16).

When a video does count

Proved properly, a recording can carry a case. In a murder appeal decided on 20 May 2025, the CCTV footage had been sent for forensic examination; the report confirmed that it was not edited in any way and that the face of the person in it matched the accused. The recording was made automatically, without anyone operating it. With the other evidence, the Supreme Court kept the murder conviction (PLD 2026 SC 251, paras 15 to 17).

The same test applies outside criminal trials. In 2021 the Supreme Court refused to restore the penalty given to an airport customs official on the strength of CCTV footage alone: the footage was never sent to a forensic laboratory, and the passengers said to have paid him were never brought into the inquiry (Member (Administration), Federal Board of Revenue v. Mian Khan, 2021 SCMR 1077, para 5).

What to do if you have a recording

Keep the original: the phone it was made on, or the CCTV recorder itself. The court looks for the actual record as it was made, so do not cut, edit or filter it, and keep it safe (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 11).

Write down who recorded it, on which device, when and where. The person who recorded it should be ready to come to court, produce it and say whose voices are on it (para 11). For CCTV, note where the camera is and whether its clock is right: in the Karachi case the Court looked for a site plan matching the camera's view, proof of continuous recording and the clock (2026 SCMR 350, para 7).

Ask for a forensic examination, and bring the recording early with a formal application. A recording produced late may be looked at with suspicion (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 11). Then speak to a lawyer: how a recording is brought in depends on the kind of case and the court.

If a recording is used against you

Ask the questions the Supreme Court asks. Who recorded it, and how did it reach the court? Is it the original? Is there a forensic report? Can anyone actually be identified in it? Was it kept safely, and was it produced on time? A recording that is not proved genuine cannot be relied on (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 11; 2026 SCMR 350, para 7).

The case at a glance

Facts

In November 2015 a man was killed at night in a room shared by some 25 students at a mosque and madrassah in Karachi. A man whose bed was near his was charged with murder. With no eyewitness, the prosecution relied on circumstances, among them a CCTV video on a USB. He was sentenced to death in 2019; in 2021 the Sindh High Court made it life imprisonment.

The question

Could the CCTV video, with the other circumstances, prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

What the Court held

No. The CCTV footage did not inspire confidence: nothing linked the camera to the place, there was no proof of continuous recording, of its clock or of freedom from edits, no forensic report, and the picture could not identify anyone. With the other circumstances also weak, he was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt and released (paras 7 to 12).

Why

A recording must be proved genuine and not tampered with before a court relies on it (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 11). In a case resting only on circumstances, every link in the chain must hold; if one fails, the chain breaks (2026 SCMR 350, para 6).

Limits

The case does not say recordings are worthless. Footage proved by a forensic report and an explanation of its source is primary evidence that needs no corroboration (PLD 2026 SC 251, paras 9 and 16). The acquittal rested on the whole record, not on the video alone.

In the Court’s words

“No audio tape or video can be relied upon by a court until the same is proved to be genuine and not tampered with or doctored.”

PLD 2019 SC 675, para 11

“there is no proof of continuous recording, time-sync or system clocks nor any demonstration that the footage is free from edits or overlays”

2026 SCMR 350, para 7

“it has also come on record that whenever the USB was attempted to be played, the court computer flagged it as virus-infected”

2026 SCMR 350, para 9

The law it relies on

What this does not mean

• It does not mean recordings are useless. A recording proved genuine can be strong evidence, and a CCTV video that passes the two-step test needs no other evidence to back it up (PLD 2026 SC 251, para 16).
• It does not mean the Karachi case turned on the video alone. The Court acquitted because the whole case, not just the video, left reasonable doubt (2026 SCMR 350, paras 7 to 12).
• It does not decide whether it is lawful to record a person without telling them. That is a separate question this page does not answer.
• It does not say every recording needs a forensic report in every case. The court decides; but without one it is more and more unsafe to rely on a recording (PLD 2019 SC 675, para 8).

Questions people ask

Sources

• Fazal Mehmood v. The State, 2026 SCMR 350 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 27 October 2025), paras 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14
  CCTV footage with no proof of continuous recording, time-sync or freedom from edits, no forensic report and no clear identification did not inspire confidence; with the other circumstances weak, the accused was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt. verified against full text
• Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 SC 675 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 23 August 2019), paras 8, 9, 11
  The requirements for relying on an audio tape or video: proved genuine and not tampered with, the actual record, the person recording produced, played in court, safe custody, source disclosed, a formal application; a forensic report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency is admissible on its own. verified against full text
• Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State, PLD 2026 SC 251 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 20 May 2025), paras 9, 15, 16, 17
  The two-step test for CCTV: how the video was obtained, and a forensic report that it was not altered; footage that passes it is primary evidence and needs no corroboration. verified against full text
• Member (Administration), Federal Board of Revenue v. Mian Khan, 2021 SCMR 1077 (Supreme Court of Pakistan), paras 5, 6
  CCTV footage never sent for a forensic test cannot be the legal basis for proceeding against a person; the penalty stayed set aside. verified against full text
• Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Articles 73, 78-A and 164 text checked in FAI Statute Search, 23 October 2026 (Article 164's proviso as quoted in PLD 2019 SC 675, para 9) Pakistan Code

Every quote and section above is traced to the full judgment or statute text by an automatic check that runs on every update.

What the reel says