"University Law College, Quetta"

Title: The impact of QSO on the

admission of relevant fact in
Pakistani Court

Submitted By: Hamid Nawaz Kahan

Submitted To: Mam Anila Faisla

Enrolment: 584

Section: B
Table of contents

 Introduction
 Background of Qanun-e-Shahadat
 Importance of Qanun-e-Shahadat in Pakistani Law
 Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence). Overview
 Definition and Scope
 History and Development
 Key Provisions and Principles
 Types of Evidence
 Relevancy and Admissibility
 Impact on Admissibility of Relevant Facts
 Role of Presumption and Inferences
 Legal principles and doctrines
 Relevance to the legal issue or topic
 Imapct of Qanun e shahadat on court
 Explain the challenges and Limitations of Qanun e
shahadat
 Conclusion
Introduction:
The Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence) is a fundamental piece of
legislation in Pakistan that governs the admissibility of evidence in legal
proceedings. Enacted in 1984, this law has significantly impacted the way
relevant facts are presented and considered in Pakistani courts. The
Qanun-e-Shahadat is based on Islamic principles of justice and aims to
ensure that evidence is presented in a fair and transparent manner.

Background of Qanun-e-Shahadat:
Pakistan’s legal system is a blend of common law and Islamic law. The
Qanun-e-Shahadat was introduced to harmonize the country’s evidence
law with Islamic principles and to address concerns about the admissibility
of evidence in legal proceedings. The law applies to all judicial
proceedings in Pakistan, including criminal and civil cases.

Importance of Qanun-e-Shahadat in Pakistani Law:

The Qanun-e-Shahadat plays a crucial role in the Pakistani legal system,
as it sets out the rules for the admissibility of evidence. The law ensures
that only relevant and reliable evidence is presented in court, which helps
to prevent miscarriages of justice. The Qanun-e-Shahadat also promotes
transparency and fairness in legal proceedings, which is essential for
maintaining public trust in the justice system.

Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence). Overview:

Definition and Scope:
Qanun-e-Shahadat is a comprehensive law governing the admissibility of
evidence in legal proceedings in Pakistan.
It defines the rules and procedures for producing, presenting, and
considering evidence in courts.
The law applies to all judicial proceedings, including criminal and civil
cases.

History and Development:

Enacted in 1984, Qanun-e-Shahadat replaced the previous Evidence Act
of 1872.
The law was introduced to harmonize Pakistan’s evidence law with
Islamic principles and values.
It was developed through a thorough review of Islamic jurisprudence,
legal precedents, and international best practices.

Key Provisions and Principles:

Admissibility of Evidence. Qanun-e-Shahadat outlines the
conditions under which evidence is admissible, including
relevance, reliability, and authenticity.
Types of Evidence: The law recognizes various types of
evidence, such as direct, circumstantial, hearsay, and
documentary evidence.
Burden of Proof: The law specifies the burden of proof on the
prosecution and defense in criminal cases.
Witnesses and Testimony: Qanun-e-Shahadat governs the
examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Presumptions and Inferences:
The law allows for presumptions and inferences to be drawn from
evidence.

Exclusion of Evidence:
The law provides grounds for excluding evidence, such as hearsay,
opinion, and irrelevant evidence.

Confessions:
Qanun-e-Shahadat regulates the admissibility of confessions and
statements made by accused persons.

Expert Evidence:
The law governs the admission of expert opinion and testimony.
Admissibility of Relevant Facts in Pakistani Courts.
General Principles of Evidence
Evidence is the means by which facts are proved in a legal proceeding.
The purpose of evidence is to establish the truth of a matter.
Evidence must be relevant, admissible, and reliable.

Types of Evidence:
Direct Evidence: Direct testimony or physical evidence that proves a fact
without inference or presumption
Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that proves a fact by
inference or presumption
Hearsay Evidence: Statement made by someone other than the witness
testifying, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
Documentary Evidence: Written or printed documents, such as contracts,
letters, and reports
Real Evidence: Physical objects, such as weapons, clothing, and other
tangible items
Testimonial Evidence: Oral testimony of witnesses

Relevancy and Admissibility:

Relevancy: The connection between the evidence and the fact to be
proved
Admissibility: The process of determining whether evidence is suitable
for consideration by the court
Logical Relevance: The evidence must have a logical connection to the
fact to be proved
Legal Relevance: The evidence must be relevant according to the law
Admissibility of Evidence:
The process of determining whether evidence is suitable for consideration
by the court

Exclusion of Evidence:
The process of determining whether evidence should be excluded from
consideration by the court.
Impact on Admissibility of Relevant Facts:
Qanun-e-Shahada has a significant impact on the admissibility of relevant
facts in Pakistani courts. The law provides guidelines for determining the
admissibility of evidence, including direct and circumstantial evidence,
and the treatment of hearsay evidence. The law also outlines the role of
presumptions and inferences in determining the admissibility of evidence.

Effect on Direct Evidence:

Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact, without the need
for inference or presumption. Qanun-e-Shahadat emphasizes the
importance of direct evidence, and it is considered more reliable and
credible than circumstantial evidence. Examples of direct evidence
include.
 Eyewitness testimony
 Physical evidence (e.g. fingerprints, DNA)
 Confessions

Effect on Circumstantial Evidence:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves a fact, through
inference or presumption. Qanun-e-Shahadat allows for the admission of
circumstantial evidence, but it is considered less reliable than direct
evidence. Examples of circumstantial evidence include:

 Fingerprints found at the crime scene.

 Suspicious circumstances (e.g. a person was seen near the crime
scene).
 Inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony.

Treatment of Hearsay Evidence:

Hearsay evidence is a statement made by someone other than the witness
testifying, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Qanun-e-
Shahadat generally excludes hearsay evidence, but there are exceptions for
admissibility in certain circumstances. Examples of hearsay evidence
include:
 A witness testifying about a statement made by someone else.
  A document or recording of a statement made by someone else.

Role of Presumption and Inferences:

Presumptions and inferences play a crucial role in determining the
admissibility of evidence. Qanun-e-Shahadat provides for certain
presumptions, such as the presumption of innocence and the presumption
of marriage. Inferences may be drawn from circumstantial evidence or
other facts. Examples of presumptions and inferences include:

Presumption of innocence:
A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Presumption of marriage: a couple is presumed to be married if they
have cohabited for a certain period of time.
Inference of guilt: a defendant’s suspicious behavior may lead to an
inference of guilt.

Legal principles and doctrines:

An examination of the legal principles and doctrines that were applied or
developed in each case.

Judicial reasoning and rationales:

A critical evaluation of the reasoning and rationales used by the judges to
reach their decisions.

Comparative analysis:
A comparison of the different approaches and conclusions reached by
various courts and judges.

Trends and patterns:

An identification of any trends or patterns that emerge from the cases, such
as changes in the law over time or differences in approach between
different jurisdictions.

Criticisms and evaluations:

An evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each case, including any
criticisms or controversies surrounding the decisions.
Relevance to the legal issue or topic:
An explanation of how each case relates to the legal issue or topic being
examined, and how it contributes to a deeper understanding of the law in
that area.

Imapct of Qanun e shahadat on court:

Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence) has a significant impact on court
decisions in Pakistan, as it provides the legal framework for the
admissibility and evaluation of evidence in legal proceedings.

Admissibility of Evidence:
Qanun-e-Shahadat governs what evidence is admissible in court, and how
it should be presented. This affects the court’s ability to consider certain
evidence, which in turn can impact the outcome of the case.

Weightage of Evidence:
The law also guides the court on how to evaluate the weight and credibility
of evidence. This ensures that the court gives appropriate importance to
different types of evidence, leading to a more informed decision.

Burden of Proof:
Qanun-e-Shahadat outlines the burden of proof required in different types
of cases, such as criminal or civil cases. This affects the court’s decision,
as the prosecution or plaintiff must meet the required burden of proof to
succeed.

Witness Testimony:
The law regulates the testimony of witnesses, including the requirements
for competency, credibility, and cross-examination. This impacts the
court’s assessment of witness testimony and its reliability.

Documentary Evidence:
Qanun-e-Shahadat governs the admissibility and evaluation of
documentary evidence, such as contracts, wills, and other written
documents. This affects the court’s consideration of such evidence in
disputes.
Circumstantial Evidence:
The law provides guidelines for the admissibility and evaluation of
circumstantial evidence, which can be crucial in cases where direct
evidence is lacking.

Presumptions and Inferences:

Qanun-e-Shahadat outlines the rules for drawing presumptions and
inferences from evidence, which can impact the court’s conclusions and
decisions.

Exclusion of Evidence:
The law provides grounds for excluding evidence, such as hearsay or
irrelevant evidence, which can affect the court’s consideration of certain
evidence.

Judicial Discretion:
Qanun-e-Shahadat grants judges discretion in certain matters, such as the
admissibility of evidence or the evaluation of witness testimony. This
allows judges to use their expertise and experience in reaching decisions.

Consistency and Predictability:

By providing a clear legal framework, Qanun-e-Shahadat promotes
consistency and predictability in court decisions, which enhances the
integrity and reliability of the legal system.
In summary, Qanun-e-Shahadat plays a vital role in shaping court
decisions in Pakistan by governing the admissibility, evaluation, and
weightage of evidence, as well as the burden of proof, witness testimony,
and other aspects of legal proceedings. Its impact ensures that court
decisions are informed, fair, and just.

Explain the challenges and Limitations of Qanun e shahadat:

Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence) is a comprehensive law governing
the admissibility and evaluation of evidence in Pakistani courts. While it
provides a framework for fair and just legal proceedings, Qanun-e-
Shahadat faces challenges and limitations that can impact its effectiveness.
These are the challenges and Limitations of Qanun e shahadat which are
given under below.

Outdated provisions:
Some provisions in Qanun-e-Shahadat are outdated and do not align with
modern legal principles and technological advancements.

Lack of clarity:
Certain sections of the law are ambiguous, leading to inconsistent
interpretations and applications by courts.

Inadequate protection for vulnerable witnesses:

Qanun-e-Shahadat does not provide sufficient protection for vulnerable
witnesses, such as victims of sexual crimes or child witnesses.

Limited scope for expert testimony:

The law restricts the admissibility of expert testimony, potentially
excluding valuable evidence in complex cases.

No provision for video evidence:

Qanun-e-Shahadat does not explicitly provide for the admissibility of
video evidence, which can be a crucial piece of evidence in modern cases.

Limited guidance on circumstantial evidence:

The law provides limited guidance on the eval.

Insufficient training for judges and lawyers:

Judges and lawyers may not receive adequate training on Qanun-e-
Shahadat, potentially leading to misunderstandings and misapplications.

Political interference and influence:

Qanun-e-Shahadat has faced criticisms of political interference and
influence, potentially undermining the independence of the judiciary.

Lack of clarity and consistency:

Certain provisions of the law are ambiguous or inconsistent, leading to
confusion and difficulties in interpretation.
Inadequate protection for accused persons:
Critics argue that Qanun-e-Shahadat may not provide sufficient protection
for accused persons, potentially leading to wrongful convictions.

Limited international cooperation:

Qanun-e-Shahadat may not provide sufficient mechanisms for
international cooperation in legal matters, potentially hindering cross-
border cases.
These criticisms and controversies highlight areas where Qanun-e-
Shahadat may require revisions or supplementary legislation to address
modern legal needs and ensure fair and effective legal proceedings in
Pakistan.

Difficulties in implementation and interpretation:

Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence) faces difficulties in implementation
and interpretation, leading to challenges in its practical application.

Linguistic complexities:
Qanun-e-Shahadat is written in a complex legal language, making it
difficult for non-lawyers to understand and interpret.

Ambiguity and vagueness:

Certain provisions are ambiguous or vague, leading to inconsistent
interpretations and applications by courts.

Outdated terminology:
The law uses outdated terminology, which can lead to confusion and
difficulties in understanding modern legal concepts.

Lack of clarity on burden of proof:

Qanun-e-Shahadat does not clearly define the burden of proof, leading to
confusion and inconsistent applications.

Inconsistent court decisions:

Courts may interpret and apply Qanun-e-Shahadat inconsistently,
resulting in variations in legal outcomes.
Limited judicial discretion:
The law restricts judicial discretion in certain matters, potentially limiting
the ability of judges to deliver justice in complex cases.

Inadequate training for judges and lawyers:

Judges and lawyers may not receive adequate training on Qanun-e-
Shahadat, potentially leading to misunderstandings and misapplications.

Limited access to legal resources:

Legal professionals may have limited access to resources, such as legal
databases and precedents, making it difficult to interpret and apply Qanun-
e-Shahadat effectively.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence) is a fundamental
piece of legislation in Pakistan that governs the admissibility of evidence
in legal proceedings. While it has played a crucial role in shaping the
country’s legal system, it faces challenges and limitations that impact its
effectiveness. Outdated provisions, lack of clarity, and inadequate
protection for vulnerable witnesses are some of the criticisms and
controversies surrounding the law. Difficulties in implementation and
interpretation, including linguistic complexities and inconsistent court
decisions, further hinder its practical application. To address these issues,
it is essential to consider revisions or supplementary legislation that
incorporates modern legal principles and technological advancements.
Providing sufficient protection for vulnerable witnesses, clarifying
ambiguous provisions, and promoting consistent court decisions are
crucial steps towards ensuring fair and effective legal proceedings.
Additionally, incorporating modern technologies, such as digital evidence
and electronic records, and enhancing international cooperation in legal
matters can further strengthen the law’s application.Ultimately, the
Qanun-e-Shahadat plays a vital role in upholding justice in Pakistan, and
its effective implementation is crucial for maintaining public trust in the
legal system. By acknowledging and addressing its challenges and
limitations, we can work towards creating a more efficient and equitable
legal framework that serves the needs of all citizens.