This study offers a comprehensive forensic linguistics analysis of a murder trial judgment in Pakistan, focusing on The State vs. Abdul Rehman (Session Case No. 14/2024, decided on 14 March 2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot). Employing a qualitative methodology grounded in sociocognitive discourse analysis and legal stylistics, the research investigates how language is strategically used to construct narratives, establish credibility, and influence judicial reasoning within the context of a high-profile criminal case. The analysis reveals that the judgment privileges the prosecution’s account through evaluative language, complex legal jargon, and the rhetorical positioning of eyewitnesses—particularly family members—as inherently trustworthy, while systematically minimizing or dismissing the defense’s arguments and highlighting forensic inconsistencies only to disregard them. The findings illustrate how the use of dense legalese and technical terminology not only restricts accessibility for laypersons but also reinforces institutional authority, sometimes shifting the burden of proof onto the accused and undermining the principle of presumption of innocence. This aligns with broader patterns in Pakistani judicial discourse, where linguistic strategies often shape perceptions of guilt and innocence, as documented in recent forensic linguistic and legal studies. The research underscores the need for integrating forensic linguistic expertise into Pakistan’s legal system to identify and address linguistic bias, enhance transparency, and ensure that justice is both comprehensible and equitable. The article concludes with targeted recommendations for institutional reform, professional training, and interdisciplinary collaboration, advocating for a justice system where language serves as a tool for clarity and fairness rather than a barrier to justice.
Akhtar et al. (Tue,) studied this question.