Stakeholder Perceptions of Forensic Infrastructure and Evidentiary Practice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan: An Exploratory Socio-Legal Study

Abstract

Background: The evidentiary value of forensic evidence depends on validated methods, an intact chain of custody, adequate infrastructure and consistent procedures. Objective: To explore how professionals positioned along the evidence pathway in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan, perceive forensic infrastructure, the uniformity of forensic protocols and the evidentiary weight given to forensic evidence. Methods: An exploratory cross-sectional survey of 50 purposively sampled respondents (10 each of investigation officers, forensic medicine experts, medical students, lawyers and judges) was combined with doctrinal analysis of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forensic Science Agency Act 2020 and leading case law. Between-group differences were examined using Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact tests. Results: Disagreement that KP's forensic infrastructure meets modern standards (90%) and that standardized protocols are uniformly followed across the province (80%) was high in every group, with no significant between-group differences. Perceptions of evidentiary weight, however, differed sharply by group (p < 0.001): 37 of 40 non-judicial respondents disagreed that forensic evidence receives adequate weight compared with ocular testimony, against 3 of 10 judges, half of whom were neutral. Conclusions: Perceived infrastructural and procedural weakness appears to be shared across professions, whereas the question of evidentiary weight divides those who produce and handle forensic evidence from those who evaluate it in court. These exploratory findings cannot be generalized beyond the sampled respondents, but they support evaluating reforms that address the whole pathway from crime scene to court rather than laboratory expansion alone.