Admissibility of Circumstantial Evidence in Shariah and Pakistani Legal System


  • Mahboob Usman IIUI
  • Dr. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad IIUI


Circumstantial Evidence, Islamic Law, Shariah, Admissibility, of evidence


Evidence plays a significant role for conviction of accused in both criminal and civil proceedings. In most of the cases direct evidence is normally unavailable, hence, circumstantial evidence is being given a vital importance by the courts globally. In the era of the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) this kind of evidence was also being relied upon to punish the criminals in certain cases. The classical Muslim jurists (Fuqha) has discussed almost all the aspects of this subject matter. In short, the jurisprudence of Islamic criminal law links the admissibility and inadmissibility of circumstantial evidence with the rights infringed. Hence, the said type of evidence is admission in certain crimes and inadmissible in others. The present paper analyses the use of circumstantial evidence for conviction in the light of Shariah and its application in the judgements of superior courts in Pakistan.


Eoghan Casey. Handbook of Digital Forensics and Investigation, ed. (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2010), 82.

. Thomas A. Johnson. Forensic Computer Crime Investigation (New York: CRC, 2005), 152.

. Albert J. Marcella and Doug Menendez. Cyber Forensics A Field Manual for Collecting, Examining, and Preserving Evidence of Computer Crimes. 2nd ed. (New York: Auerbach Publications, 2008), 5-6.

. Allison Rebecca Stanfield, “The Authentication of Electronic Evidence,” (Ph.D. diss., Queensland University of Technology, 2016), 4.

. Richard Boddington, Practical Digital Forensics (Birmingham: Packt Publishing, 2016), 72.

. Ibid., 296.

. John R Vacca, Computer Forensics: Computer Crime Scene Investigation. 2nd ed. (Massachusetts: Charles River Media, Inc., 2005), 4.

. Ibid., 217.

. Ibid.

. Ann D. Zigler and Ernesto F. Rojas, Preserving Electronic Evidence for Trial a team approach to the Litigation Hold, Data Collection, and Evidence Preservation (New York: Elsevier Inc., 2016), xiv.

. Vacca, Computer Forensics: Computer Crime Scene Investigation, 218.

. Ibid., 219.

. Boddington, Practical Digital Forensics, 23.

. Vacca, Computer Forensics: Computer Crime Scene Investigation, 219.

. Ibid.

. Ibid.

. Dr. Anwarullah, Islamic Law of Evidence. 2nd ed. (Islamabad: Shar’ah Academy, 2007), 63.

. Allah Rakkha v. the State, Criminal Appeal no. 45 of 2013 decided on 05.10.2021.

. Quran 12: 25-28.

. Quran 12: 26-28.

. Quran 55: 7.

. Translation of this verse has been taken from Quran-e-Karim, translated by Justice Mufti Taqi Usmani.

. Sahih al-Bukhari 3141; Sahih Muslim 1752.

. Ibn Majah, Al-Sunan, ii, 171.

. Sahih al-Bukhari 6769; Sahih Muslim 1720a; Sunan an-Nasa'i 5402; Riyad as-Salihin 1827

. Sunan Abi Dawud 4379; Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1454; Mishkat al-Masabih 3572

. Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr Shams al-Din Ibn al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, Al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah fi al-Siyasah al-Shariyyah (Cairo: Maktabah al-Muhammadiyyah, 1973), 7

. Sunan an-Nasa'i 3470 & 3471

. Ibn al-Qayyim, Al-Turuq Al-Hukmiyyah, 98.

. Ibn al-Qayyim, Al-Turuq Al-Hukmiyyah, 43

. Majallah el-Ahkam-i-Adliya is the Ottoman Courts Manual mostly based on Hanafi fiqh.

. Majallah, 1741

. Black’s Law Dictionary, s.v. “circumstantial evidence.”

. Shabbir Ahmad v. the State, 2015 YLR 93.

. Ameen Khan v. the State, 2015 MLD 553.

. Binyamin alias Khari v. the State, 2007 SCMR 778.

. Rizwan Ali v. the Commissioner (SMD), SECP, Islamabad, 2018 CLD 346.

. Later on, this view was upheld by the court in Samar Jan William v. the State, 2002 MLD 1027. The same view by SC (AJ&K) was taken in Muhammad Shafat v. the state, 2004 PCRLJ 864 SC (AJ & K).

. Barkat Ali v. Karam Elahi Zia, 1992 SCMR 1047.

. Mehmood Ahmed Khan v. the State, 1993 PCRLJ 2093 Karachi

. Jamait Ali Shah v. the State, 1993 PCRLJ 1547.

. Shahid alias Shah v. the State, 2002 MLD 1459.

. Khalid Mahmood v. the State, 1994 PCRLJ 757.

. Muhammad Murad v. State, 1972 SCMR 103.

. Muhammad Afzal v. State, 1984 SCMR 308. Later on, in Saeed Ahmad Alias Saeed Akbar v. State, 1985 SCMR 1455, SC discussed when the circumstantial evidence alone could be made basis for conviction.

. Muhammad Nazim v. Rehana Parveen Begum, 1990 MLD 344 Karachi.

. Abdul Karim v. Noor Muhammad, 1990 MLD 2073 Karachi. Later on, the court discussed same things in State v. Muhammad Rafi, 1990 PCRLJ 1042 Karachi.

. Akhtar Hussain v. State, 1990 PCRLJ 1963 Lahore.

. Mango Alias Manthar v. the State, 1992 PCRLJ 1963 Karachi.

. Muhammad Yusuf v. the State, 1992 PCRLJ 1426 Lahore.

. Mehboob Ali v. State, 1991 MLD 2455 Karachi.

. Muhammad Rafique v. The State, 1992 PCrLJ 2119 Karachi

. Similar view was also taken in Ghulam Abuzar v. The State, 1991 PCrLJ 697 Karachi.

. Javed v. State, 2018 PCrLJ 177 Lahore.

. Rehman Gul v. the State, 2019 PCrLJ 21.

. Dr. V.D. Mahajan. Jurisprudence and Legal Theory (Lahore: Mansoor Book House, n.d), 491.

. Allah Rakkha v. the State, Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2013 decided on 05.10.2021.

. Naveed Asghar v. the State, PLD 2021 SC 600.

. Hashim Qasim v. the State, 2017 SCMR 986.




How to Cite

Mahboob Usman, & Dr. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad. (2021). Admissibility of Circumstantial Evidence in Shariah and Pakistani Legal System. Zia E Tahqeeq, 11(22), 13–23. Retrieved from