DNA Evidence in Pakistani Criminal Trials: Legal Standards After the Fiza Noor Verdict

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a landmark judgment affirming the death sentence of Abdul Razaq in the case of six-year-old Fiza Noor's murder. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim's thirteen-page judgment represents a significant statement on the evidentiary weight of DNA testing in Pakistani criminal trials. The Court explicitly stated that DNA testing serves as "the gold standard" for identifying the accused. This decision consolidates a decade of evolution in how Pakistani courts treat scientific evidence and has immediate implications for prosecutors, defence lawyers, and investigation agencies across the country.

The Fiza Noor Case and Its Significance

The murder of Fiza Noor from Faisalabad was a case that shocked the nation. The child's death received widespread media coverage, and public pressure mounted on the investigating officers to identify and prosecute the perpetrator. The investigation ultimately relied heavily on DNA evidence collected from the crime scene and matched to the accused. Both the trial court and the Lahore High Court had previously upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court's affirmation in March 2026 was not a reversal but a restatement and clarification of the legal principles governing DNA evidence.

Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim's judgment emphasised that the Court showed no leniency in cases involving brutal crimes against minors. The judgment stated plainly that lenient sentences in such cases pose a threat to society. This reinforces a broader principle in Pakistani criminal law: sentences for offences against children, particularly murder and sexual assault, have become progressively more severe over the past fifteen years. The Courts recognise that crimes against children demand the strongest possible response from the criminal justice system.

Legal Framework for DNA Evidence Under Pakistani Law

DNA evidence is admissible in Pakistani criminal trials under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Article 17 of the Order permits expert evidence on scientific and technical matters, which includes DNA testing. There is no statutory framework that specifically governs the collection, analysis, or admissibility of DNA evidence. Instead, courts have developed principles through case law, borrowing from international best practices and the evidentiary standards applied in common law jurisdictions.

The fundamental rule is that DNA evidence is scientific evidence, and scientific evidence is admissible when it is relevant, reliable, and properly obtained. The courts have consistently held that DNA profiling meets these criteria. Where DNA evidence is properly collected, properly analysed, and properly presented by qualified experts, it carries enormous weight in a criminal trial.

The key legal issue is not whether DNA evidence is admissible but how much weight it should carry. The Supreme Court in the Fiza Noor case has now clarified that when DNA evidence is obtained properly and analysed by a competent laboratory, it should be treated as the gold standard for identification. This means that in cases where DNA evidence points to the guilt of the accused and is not contradicted by other reliable evidence, conviction can rest substantially on DNA evidence alone.

Chain of Custody: The Critical Weakness in Pakistan's Forensic System

The reliability of DNA evidence depends critically on the chain of custody. From the moment a biological sample is collected at the crime scene until it is tested in the laboratory, every link in the chain must be documented, preserved, and defensible. If there is any break in the chain, any gap in the record, or any indication that the sample was mishandled or contaminated, the entire DNA evidence can be rendered unreliable or inadmissible.

This is the area where Pakistan's forensic system has historically been weakest. Investigation officers at the crime scene often lack training in proper sample collection. The scene is not properly secured. Samples are collected without proper protective equipment or documentation. They are transported in ordinary containers without temperature control. They are stored in police custody without proper refrigeration. By the time they reach the laboratory, the chain has been compromised in multiple ways.

The Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) and the Sindh Forensic Science Agency have made improvements in recent years, but the reality remains that many crime scenes are still processed by untrained personnel. Police investigating officers often do not understand the importance of proper sample collection. Defence lawyers in Pakistan have successfully challenged DNA evidence in numerous cases by exposing these chain-of-custody failures.

What the Fiza Noor judgment establishes is not that chain-of-custody issues no longer matter. Rather, it confirms that when the chain of custody is properly maintained and documented, DNA evidence is entitled to the highest evidentiary weight. In cases where the chain is broken, courts should continue to scrutinise the evidence carefully and require clear explanation of how contamination or mishandling is ruled out.

Standards for DNA Testing in Pakistan

DNA testing in Pakistan is conducted primarily at the Punjab Forensic Science Agency and the Sindh Forensic Science Agency. Both agencies have adopted internationally recognised testing protocols and quality standards. However, neither agency is accredited by the international standards body for forensic laboratories. This creates a technical vulnerability in any DNA case where the defence lawyer wishes to challenge the methodology or credentials of the testing facility.

The Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that only DNA testing from internationally accredited laboratories is admissible. However, courts will scrutinise the credentials, training, and methodology of any forensic laboratory with particular care if it is not internationally accredited. Lawyers defending DNA cases should always investigate the training and experience of the laboratory technicians who conducted the analysis, the equipment used, the testing protocols followed, and the proficiency testing the laboratory has undergone.

The practical reality is that most defence challenges to DNA evidence in Pakistan focus not on the science itself but on the chain of custody. A defence lawyer is far more likely to succeed in challenging the reliability of DNA evidence by showing that the sample was contaminated or mishandled before it reached the laboratory than by attacking the testing methodology.

DNA Evidence in Relation to Other Evidence

The Fiza Noor judgment does not hold that DNA evidence automatically convicts. It states that DNA evidence is the gold standard for identification. This means that DNA evidence that matches the accused to the crime scene is extremely persuasive. But it must still be considered in the context of other evidence in the case.

Consider a case where DNA evidence links the accused to the crime scene but the accused has an alibi corroborated by independent witnesses. The court must reconcile these conflicting pieces of evidence. Similarly, if DNA evidence is the only evidence linking the accused to the crime and everything else points away from the accused, a court is entitled to acquit despite the DNA match if it finds that the DNA evidence, considered as a whole, does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In the Fiza Noor case, the DNA evidence was supported by other evidence: eyewitness identifications, circumstantial evidence, and evidence of motive. The Supreme Court's judgment should not be read as holding that DNA evidence alone is sufficient for conviction in all cases. Rather, it establishes that DNA evidence is powerful evidence that, when properly obtained and analysed, deserves substantial weight in the court's deliberations.

Impact on Criminal Investigations and Prosecution Strategy

The Fiza Noor judgment will influence how investigation agencies prioritise forensic evidence collection. Police investigating officers should now understand that DNA evidence, properly collected and documented, can be decisive in a case. This should incentivise investment in training investigators on proper sample collection, securing crime scenes to prevent contamination, and documenting the chain of custody meticulously.

For prosecutors, the judgment clarifies that cases built substantially on DNA evidence are viable. In the past, prosecutors might have been hesitant to rely heavily on scientific evidence due to concerns about its acceptance by courts or its weight relative to eyewitness testimony. The judgment removes much of this hesitancy. Prosecutors can now confidently present DNA evidence as the cornerstone of a case, provided the chain of custody is properly established.

For defence lawyers, the judgment presents both challenges and opportunities. The challenge is that DNA evidence is now treated as the gold standard. A defence strategy that simply attacks the witness testimony while ignoring DNA evidence is likely to fail. The opportunity is that the judgment re-emphasises the criticality of chain of custody. A defence lawyer who can establish that the chain of custody was broken or that the sample was mishandled has a strong basis for excluding or discrediting the DNA evidence, regardless of the technical sophistication of the laboratory analysis.

DNA Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases

DNA evidence is particularly important in sexual assault cases. Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code criminalises rape and related offences. In such cases, DNA evidence collected from the victim's body or clothing can establish whether the accused had sexual contact with the victim. This is powerful evidence of the actual occurrence of the sexual act, which the victim must prove to establish rape.

The challenge in sexual assault cases is that many victims do not report the crime immediately. By the time the victim comes to the police, DNA evidence may be degraded or lost. Moreover, consensual sexual contact would also produce DNA evidence, so the presence of DNA matching the accused does not necessarily establish rape. The existence of sexual contact must be coupled with evidence that the victim did not consent.

Courts in Pakistan have held that in rape cases, DNA evidence of sexual contact is not sufficient on its own to prove lack of consent. The victim must testify regarding the lack of consent. However, DNA evidence corroborating the victim's account of sexual contact significantly strengthens the prosecution case. It is no longer just the victim's word against the accused's word. The biological evidence confirms that sexual contact did occur.

Practical Guidance for Parties to Criminal Proceedings

If you are investigating a serious crime, collect biological samples from the crime scene under the supervision of trained personnel. Document every step. Use sterile containers. Label samples clearly. Record the identity of the person who collected the sample, the date and time of collection, and the location at the crime scene. Keep samples in appropriate storage conditions. Maintain a detailed log of who had access to the samples and when.

If DNA evidence is used against you in a criminal case, scrutinise the chain of custody. Request the full documentation of sample collection, storage, transportation, receipt at the laboratory, testing, and analysis. Ask probing questions: Who collected the sample? Were they trained? What protective equipment was used? How was the sample stored and transported? Was it refrigerated? Who handled it? Were there any gaps in the documentation? Was the sample tested multiple times? If so, what happened to the original sample?

If you are a lawyer or investigator seeking to use DNA evidence, engage with the forensic laboratory at the earliest stage. Explain the investigation and the evidence. Discuss the types of samples that should be collected and how they should be collected. Accompany the crime scene investigation if possible. Ensure that the laboratory understands the full context of the case so that it can advise on the most reliable approach to testing.

The Fiza Noor judgment does not change the fundamental principle that a criminal case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It clarifies that when DNA evidence is properly obtained and analysed, it is entitled to considerable weight in establishing that proof. For investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and the courts, this judgment provides a clear framework for evaluating scientific evidence in criminal trials.