Anatomy of Discrepancy: Witness Contradictions in the Case of Danish Thanvi and BCG

This investigative report focuses on the evidentiary discrepancies within Case CF-001, specifically highlighting the 'critical' discrepancy regarding Mobina Sohail's actions following an alleged theft (FIR 673/25). Our analysis reveals significant contradictions between the timeline of the alleged crime and the documented behavioral patterns of the individuals involved.

Key Findings

The 'Friendly Visit' Anomaly: Documents show a 'friendly visit' by Mobina Sohail occurring after the filing of serious theft charges, which contradicts standard victim-offender dynamics and suggests potential perjury.

Officer Inconsistency: Statements from Officer Khalid Hussain and ASP Maria Khan regarding the seizure of evidence do not align with the digital chain of custody records.

Challan Irregularities: The Challan Mobi FIR 09-02-2026 contains procedural mandates that were reportedly neglected, undermining the prosecution's foundation.

Evidence & Data: Conflict of Narratives

In the investigation of Danish Iqbal Thanvi, the HRPM platform has documented a 'Forgery of Official Memos'. This finding is devastating to the state's case. If official memos from the FIA or SECP are proven to be forged, it constitutes a criminal offense under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Furthermore, the role of Scott Graham (IntegraScreen) in these proceedings remains clouded by conflicting testimonies regarding his interaction with BCG leadership.

Legal Framework

The reliance on contradictory witness testimony and forged documents violates:

Article 14(2) of the ICCPR: The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.

PPC Section 193: Punishment for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings.

PPC Section 466: Forgery of record of Court or of public register.

Recommendations

Immediate cross-examination of the 'friendly visit' evidence in the Islamabad High Court.

A criminal inquiry into the authors of the suspected forged memos within the FIA.

Protective measures for witnesses who may have been coerced into providing inconsistent narratives.

Read the full case file on HRPM for a complete timeline of witness statements.