Forensic Questioned Documents in Criminal Justice : Scientific Tools, Courtroom Admissibility, and Challenges
Article content
Abstract
Forensic document examination is a highly specialized branch of forensic science that focuses on determining the authenticity of disputed documents. Practitioners use a variety of scientific techniques to detect forgery, alterations, and other forms of document tampering, including ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) imaging, electrostatic detection (ESDA), and high-resolution microscopy. Despite its evidentiary value, this discipline has received limited recognition in Pakistan's legal system. The study aimed to assess the role of forensic questioned documents in criminal investigation and its evidentiary limitations in the justice system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The researcher conducted qualitative research by interviewing five forensic document examiners who work at the Peshawar Forensic Science Laboratory; along with fifteen public prosecutors, and five defense counsels. Since there are a limited number of forensic document examiners in the provincial laboratory, a census sample was used, while purposive sampling was employed for public prosecutors and defense counsels who had been involved in experiences with documents related cases. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified key themes, including chain of custody, process of forensic analysis, judicial perception, limited weightage of forensic reports, forensic capacity gaps. Findings revealed that the most frequent disputed documents received by the lab, were stamp papers, cheques, academic degrees, Nikah Namas (marriage certificates), burnt documents, mutation records, and even writings on walls, leaves, and human skin. Tasks such as ink differentiation, indented writing detection, and signature verification are currently performed using VSC 6000/HS and ESDA-2 apparatus however, they require more advanced instruments such as VSC 9000/HS and high-resolution microscopes for optimal results. Courts treat forensic reports as corroborative rather than primary evidence. Major challenges include delays in reports, poor stakeholder coordination, and limited qualifications and training of experts. The findings suggested that the role of forensic analysts need to be enhanced by providing them advance training. Further, policy reforms and mechanism of collaborative relationships between the relevant stakeholders for the pursuance of criminal investigation need to be developed for effective justice system administration
Keywords
Questioned Documents, VSC 9000/HS, Forensic report, Forgery detection, Criminal justice, forensic sciences
Downloads
References
Biber K. In crime’s archive: The cultural afterlife of evidence. London: Routledge; 2010.
Houck MM, Siegel JA. Fundamentals of forensic science. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015.
Asif M, Qayum S. Analyzing the admissibility of forensic evidence in the criminal justice of Pakistan: Issues, challenges and scope. Pak J Criminol. 2023;15(3):61–75.
Kelly JS, Lindblom BS. Scientific examination of questioned documents. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2006.
Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science. 2005;309(5736):892-5.
Edmond G, Cunliffe E, Martire KA, San Roque M. Forensic science evidence and the limits of cross-examination. Melb Univ Law Rev. 2019;42(3):906-50.
Mnookin JL. Of black boxes, instruments, and experts: testing the validity of forensic science. Episteme. 2008;5(3):343-58. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000440
Kelly JS, Lindblom BS, editors. Scientific examination of questioned documents. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis Group; 2024.
Houck MM. Forensic science: Modern methods of solving crime. Santa Barbara: Praeger; 2020.
Hilton O. Scientific examination of questioned documents. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co.; 1982.
Levinson J. Questioned documents: A lawyer's handbook. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001.
Mangi D, Khan R. Forensic protocols and investigation of crimes in Pakistan: A case of Sindh. Pak Soc Sci Rev. 2021;5(2):614–30.
Pakistan. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, arts. 46, 59, 78, 164.
Pakistan. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 510
Pakistan. Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, s. 27-B.
Pakistan. Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, ss. 34, 35, 47.
Pakistan. Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2015, s. 29.
Pakistan. Police Order, 2002 art. 8 (2).
Shah SAA, Hussain B. Challenges faced by police officers in forensic criminal investigation in district Peshawar, Pakistan. Pak J Criminol. 2021;13(4):51–65.
European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). EENFSI Documents. [Internet]. Wiesbaden (Germany): ENFSI; [cited 2025 Feb 16]. Available from: https://enfsi.eu/
Shah SAA. Forensic fingerprints: An evidential clue for police officers in forensic investigation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pak J Crim Justice. 2024;4(2). doi:10.62585/pjcj.v4i2.100.
Newburn T, Williamson T, Wright A. Handbook of criminal investigation. London: Routledge; 2012.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Guide for the development of forensic document examination capacity. New York: United Nations; 2010.
Zia MH, Ali A. Legal aspects of evidence collected by modern devices: A case study. J Dev Soc Sci. 2021;2(4):286–97.
Rana AA. Admissibility of evidence produced via modern devices and techniques: A look in Pakistani prospective. Int J Res. 2020;8:67.
Zahra S. Documentary and oral scientific expert evidence and modes of scientific examination under Pakistani laws. J Law Soc Stud. 2022;4(1):203-16. doi:10.52279/jlss.04.01.203216
National Institute of Justice (US). National Institute of Justice annual report 2020. Washington (DC): National Institute of Justice; 2023 Mar. Available from: https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/national-institute-justice-annual-report-2020
Mathyer J. Psychological profile of suspects in document forgery. J Crim Law Criminol. 1969;60(1):102–112.
Kam M, Wetstein J, Conn R. Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification. J Forensic Sci. 1994;39(1):5–14.
Freer E. Experts and pretenders: Examining possible responses to misconduct by experts in criminal trials in England and Wales. Int J Evid Proof. 2020;24(2):180–207.
Kovera MB, Austin JL. Expert testimony. Int Encycl Soc Behav Sci. 2015;8(2):582–7.
Article details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
You must read and accept the copyright terms and conditions(click here for copyright terms).