Pakistan: Lahore Court Sentences Four Men to Death, Relying on Forensic Evidence With “Procedural Defects”

The Judgment

On 17 October 2026, Additional Sessions Judge Nusrat Ali Siddiqui Malik of Lahore convicted four men in a case brought by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIR No. C-104/22) and sentenced each of them to death under Section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code, with a fine of five hundred thousand rupees. The convicts, Muhammad Shoaib Sarwar, Arslan, Saqib Ali and Hassan Raza, were also sentenced under four additional provisions: seven years under Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016, ten years under Section 295 A, life imprisonment under Section 295 B, and three years under Section 298 A. They were arrested between May and September 2022 and remained in custody throughout a trial lasting over four years.

Two other accused were named in the case: Fatima Jahangir, who died during the proceedings, and Tayyab Bin Arif, declared a proclaimed offender in November 2025 and still at large.

The Prosecution Case

The case began with a written complaint dated 19 May 2022 alleging that blasphemous material, including videos and images of desecration of the Quran, was circulating in WhatsApp groups. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, mostly FIA officials, and relied on technical reports and forensic extractions of mobile phones and Facebook accounts performed with Cellebrite software. According to the judgment, desecrated copies of the Quran were recovered from two of the accused, and videos allegedly showing sacrilegious acts were found on seized devices.

The Defense

All four defendants pleaded not guilty and claimed that the digital evidence had been fabricated and planted: SIM cards registered in their names had been unlawfully reissued, Facebook accounts had been planted on seized phones after factory resets, and the complainant’s screenshots had been produced by connecting a phone to a computer. They further argued that the complainant was an activist of an anti-blasphemy group that traps people in such cases, and that the forensic reports, prepared with Cellebrite, a company headquartered in Israel, had no value in law. None of the four chose to testify on oath, and only one produced limited documentation.

Defects Acknowledged, Convictions Nonetheless

The reasoning of the court is where this judgment deserves attention. The judge writes that the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses “are not entirely reliable” and that “the Investigating Officers have admitted some procedural lapses.” His conclusion: “In such circumstances, the court must rely on the forensic evidence,” which, “despite its procedural defects, is sufficient to convict these accused persons.”

The judgment dismisses the objection to Cellebrite on the ground that the company’s location does not affect the reliability of its findings. It holds that a person may lodge multiple complaints of this nature and compares the complainant to a whistleblower. Most strikingly, the court treated as “deemed admitted” the appearance of two copies of the Quran in allegedly derogatory videos because no cross examination had been conducted on that point, and it drew adverse conclusions from the defendants’ refusal to testify on oath, a right whose exercise cannot be turned into evidence of guilt.

The judge himself declined to reproduce the content of the incriminating material, stating that its verbatim reproduction in a public document could cause anguish, offend religious sentiments, and potentially give rise to hostility.

Cumulative Charges and the Death Penalty

The defendants were acquitted of conspiracy under Sections 120 B and 34 of the Penal Code, the court finding that the offences were committed separately. They were nonetheless convicted on every substantive count, with concurrent sentences. The combination of a cybercrime provision, three blasphemy provisions and a religious offence provision for the same underlying acts sends four men to death row, subject to confirmation by the Lahore High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An appeal may be filed within thirty days, and time in detention will be credited under Section 382 B.

Trials for blasphemy in Pakistan carry risks that extend far beyond the courtroom: the accused face mob violence, judges face enormous pressure, and convictions frequently rest on evidence collected in breach of procedural safeguards. This judgment is unusual only in that it says so openly, admitting the defects of the very evidence on which it rests. The involvement of the FIA and cybercrime legislation in blasphemy prosecutions extends these risks into the digital sphere. Whether the allegations are proven or not, the death penalty imposed on digital evidence acknowledged to be procedurally defective raises serious fair trial concerns that the Lahore High Court will now have to address in the confirmation proceedings.

A copy of the judgment was made available to CAP LC, which will follow the proceedings before the Lahore High Court.