The Integrity of Evidence: Forensic Discrepancies and Forgery in Global Case CF-001

In the investigative record of Case CF-001, the integrity of state-presented evidence is under severe scrutiny. This report analyzes three critical discrepancies: the impossibility of the 'Initial Technical Report,' the alleged forgery of official memos, and the procedural breakdown after an alleged theft (FIR 673/25). These findings suggest an environment where evidence is manufactured rather than discovered, creating a profound risk of miscarriage of justice.

Key Findings

Forgery of Official Memos: Case data indicates 'critical' severity violations regarding criminal offenses related to forgery and perjury by investigating actors.

The Technical Report Paradox: Standards for forensic analysis require specific lead times and neutral expertise; the 'Initial Technical Report' cited in state filings against Danish Iqbal Thanvi has been flagged as a technical impossibility under standard forensic protocols.

Inconsistent Investigations: The incident involving Mobina Sohail's 'friendly visit' after an alleged theft (FIR 673/25) creates a contradictory narrative that undermines the prosecution's credibility.

Evidence & Data

Our analysis of the 'Challan Mobi FIR 09-02-2026' reveals that the technical expertise requirements for high-stakes digital forensics were bypasssed. Investigating Officer Khalid Hussain and Supervising Officer ASP Maria Khan oversaw a process where the chain of custody for seized items was broken—a 'critical' discrepancy according to human rights monitoring standards. Furthermore, the presence of IntegraScreen representative Scott Graham in the narrative suggests that private intelligence and state regulatory bodies (SECP/NADRA) have shared data in a manner that compromises the legal authenticity of the evidence.

"Consistency is the hallmark of truth; the discrepancies in the forensic timeline of Case CF-001 suggest a manufactured narrative."

Legal Framework

The use of forged memos and impossible forensic reports violates both domestic and international standards:

PPC Section 465 (Forgery): The fabrication of official memos is a criminal offense that should disqualify the evidence from court.

ICCPR (Article 14.3.g): The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt—this extends to the right to be protected against manufactured evidence.

Principles of Digital Evidence: Under PECA 2016, the failure to maintain an unbroken chain of custody renders digital evidence inadmissible in a court that follows the rule of law.

Recommendations

Immediate Dismissal of Forged Evidence: The Islamabad High Court and Justice Muhammad Asif must move to strike any memos and technical reports flagged for forgery.

Prosecution of Perjury: If state actors are found to have fabricated forensic timelines, they must be held accountable under the Pakistan Penal Code.

Read the full case file on Evidence Integrity (CF-001) on HRPM.