Can CCTV footage or WhatsApp messages be used as evidence in a criminal case?

CCTV footage, WhatsApp messages, mobile-phone records and other electronic material can be used as evidence in Pakistani criminal proceedings where the governing rules of relevance, authenticity and admissibility are satisfied. It is incorrect to assume that electronic information is inadmissible merely because it is digital, but it is equally unsafe to treat an unverified screenshot or edited video as conclusive proof. The legal assessment depends on what the material is intended to prove, how it was obtained, preserved and authenticated, and whether it satisfies the applicable evidentiary requirements.

The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, including Article 164 as amended, is central to the treatment of evidence available through modern devices and information systems. The Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 and criminal procedural rules may also be relevant. Where forensic integrity or source identification is disputed, expert and chain-of-custody evidence become particularly important.

Electronic evidence is not automatically inadmissible

The legal system recognises that information may be recorded, stored and communicated electronically. Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order addresses evidence made available through modern devices and techniques, with statutory amendments affecting its wording.

An electronic message may help show an admission, instruction, threat, meeting or transaction. CCTV can depict movement or conduct, subject to identification and integrity.

The court must still decide whether the material is relevant, authentic and given appropriate evidentiary weight. Digital format alone establishes none of those matters.

The original source matters

For CCTV, identify the camera, recording device, system administrator, relevant date and storage medium. For WhatsApp, identify the device, account, participants and complete conversation.

A forwarded clip or cropped screenshot can omit relevant context or be manipulated. Preserve the original device or reliable export where lawful and practicable.

A party should distinguish a document that someone received from proof that the apparent sender actually authored it.

CCTV chain of custody

The evidence record should establish who extracted footage, when, from which device and using what process. Keep a secure original or forensically sound copy and record subsequent handling.

Where a camera system automatically overwrites files, prompt preservation can be essential. A business may need to suspend ordinary deletion for the relevant time range after a credible legal hold.

Gaps in recording, wrong clock settings or poor resolution can affect reliability. These issues should be disclosed rather than hidden.

Time stamps and identification

CCTV system clocks can be inaccurate. The recorded time should be compared with other reliable events such as access-control records, transaction logs or telephone communications.

Facial visibility may be poor, and clothing alone may not definitively identify a suspect. The footage should not be described as conclusive where identification remains uncertain.

A witness familiar with the scene may assist with context, but their conclusions must remain subject to evidentiary scrutiny.

WhatsApp messages and context

Messages may appear to show a contractual promise, admission or threat. The court may need to consider whether the entire chat supports the interpretation asserted.

A single screenshot can omit earlier messages that substantially change meaning. Preserve timestamps, contact information, attachments and messages preceding and following the relevant statement.

A displayed contact name is user-editable and is not necessarily proof of the sender's identity. Device ownership and corroborating evidence can matter.

Authentication and forensic examination

Where a party disputes digital authenticity, appropriate technical evidence may be needed to examine extraction methods, metadata, hashes, editing or other signs of alteration.

The need for expert examination depends on the issue and proceedings. Not every ordinary message requires an identical forensic process, but contested crucial evidence should be handled carefully.

A witness should not claim specialist certainty about digital integrity without adequate competence and basis.

Lawful collection and privacy

Material must be obtained lawfully and with attention to privacy, confidentiality and relevant procedural rules. A company investigating employee misconduct should assess its access rights and preservation duties.

Unauthorized intrusion into private accounts or devices can create separate legal exposure. The desire to prove a criminal case does not automatically authorise illegal surveillance.

Where sensitive information about unrelated persons is captured, counsel should consider relevance, redaction and appropriate court directions.

The role of Article 164

Article 164 is an important statutory provision recognising modern forms of evidence, as amended. It does not displace all ordinary principles concerning proof, relevance and judicial evaluation.

The latest text should be consulted because amendments have addressed modern communications and techniques. A legal opinion relying on old wording alone may be incomplete.

The court determines admissibility and weight under the governing law and circumstances. A party should not promise that any chat will inevitably be accepted as proof of guilt.

Recordings of conversations

An audio or video recording may raise questions of speaker identification, consent, editing, accuracy and lawful collection. The legal treatment depends on facts and the statute.

The party offering it should explain when, where and how it was made and retain original files. A transcript can assist understanding but is not necessarily a substitute for proving the underlying recording.

Where a conversation is in Urdu or another language, an accurate translation may be necessary for the court record.

Call data and location records

Telecommunications records may indicate calls or network events, but a cell-site connection does not necessarily pinpoint the subscriber's exact physical location at all times.

The legal authority for obtaining subscriber or location information should be examined. Such data may be confidential and subject to statutory restrictions.

A court should distinguish what the technical record actually establishes from inferences drawn beyond its accuracy.

Evidence preserved by a business

An organisation may preserve access logs, CCTV, email records and file-transfer records after suspected theft or data misuse.

Establish who had lawful access, whether logs were generated automatically, how records were exported and whether administrative accounts could alter them.

A document showing that a file was downloaded does not by itself resolve whether the person had permission to download it or what happened afterward.

Criminal burden of proof

Electronic evidence forms part of the overall case. The prosecution must prove the charged offence to the criminal standard, including every legally required ingredient.

A clip showing someone entering an office does not necessarily prove theft; a message discussing a loan does not necessarily prove fraudulent intention.

Digital material should be evaluated with eyewitness, documentary, expert and other evidence, including credible alternative explanations.

Objections to edited evidence

A party who believes footage is selectively edited should identify the missing segment and relevant reason, request a lawful original or complete copy and pursue appropriate examination.

Merely calling evidence 'fake' without pointing to an identifiable integrity issue may not displace it.

Conversely, a proponent should not conceal that a clip was shortened for presentation. Provide a reliable original when lawfully required and explain any editing.

A practical workplace investigation

Suppose an employee is accused of deleting customer files after termination. CCTV shows the employee entering the server room, while system logs show deletion commands.

The employer should establish the account permissions, source of logs, integrity of both records and whether the employee actually used the account. CCTV location alone may not prove the deletion; logs may not prove individual authorship if credentials were shared.

A defensible case combines sources and confronts uncertainty rather than claiming one screenshot resolves all facts.

Preparing electronic exhibits

Prepare an indexed list identifying each file, device or source, relevant period, custodian, method of extraction and proposition to be proved.

Retain secure backups and document access or transfers. Use appropriate technical support where evidence is likely to be challenged.

The exhibit description should accurately state what is visible or communicated, without adding speculative conclusions as though they were recorded facts.

Opinion and recommended course

CCTV and WhatsApp evidence can be relevant and admissible in Pakistani criminal proceedings where obtained and proved according to applicable law. Authentication, completeness, lawful collection and chain of custody are central, especially for contested digital exhibits.

Preserve the original source, document extraction and custody, corroborate identity and timing, and present the material within the statutory evidentiary framework rather than relying on unverified screenshots.

Principal authorities for verification: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, especially Article 164 as amended; Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; relevant electronic-crime law; and controlling Pakistani judicial authority on authenticity and evidentiary weight of electronic records.