Pay Calc

Noor Mukadam murder case: Supreme Court upholds death sentence of convict Zahir Jaffar

Noor Mukadam murder case: Supreme Court upholds death sentence of convict Zahir Jaffar

Pakistan

Noor, 27, was found murdered at convict Zahir’s residence in July 2021

Follow on
Follow us on Google News
Advertisement
0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
00:00
00:00
 

ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the death sentence handed down to Zahir Jaffer in the Noor Mukadam murder case.

Justice Hashim Kakar announced the brief judgment, upholding the death sentence of convict Jaffer. He stated that the court upholds the trial court’s verdict regarding the sections related to rape and converted the 25-year term to life imprisonment.

The court also upheld the order for payment of compensation to Noor Mukadam’s family.

The court commuted sentences of Jaffer’s gardener and watchman observing that Jan Mohammad and Iftikhar have served sufficient time in prison.

Earlier, Advocate Salman Safdar completed arguments against the conviction of his client Jaffer.

Noor, 27, was found murdered at convict Zahir’s residence in July 2021. The death sentence, handed down by the trial court, was upheld by the Islamabad High Court (IHC), which had also turned his jail term over rape charges into a second death penalty.

Noor was murdered in cold blood as investigations revealed that she was tortured before being beheaded.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Hashim Kakar and including includes Justices Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Ali Baqar Najafi is hearing the appeals of Jaffer and his accomplices.

Earlier, convict Jaffer's lawyer Safdar submitted that the entire prosecution case was based on CCTV footage and the DVR. The evidence against the appellant must be beyond reasonable doubt.

He stated that the court cannot go beyond the footage presented as evidence. He argued that an attempt was made in the Islamabad High Court to play the footage which failed. However, the video was played from a USB provided by the lawyer.

Later, the lawyer representing Jaffer’s accomplices watchman and gardener began arguments. He submitted that both were sentenced to 10 years in prison. The allegation against them is that they prevented the victim from leaving the house.

Justice Najafi remarked that had the convicts not stopped the victim, the situation might have been different. To this, the lawyer responded that both the accomplices committed no other crime.

Justice m Kakar remarked: “Why was there a need to do more than what their job required?”

As Advocate Shah Khawar, representing Noor’s father Shaukat Mukadam who is a retired diplomat, began his arguments after Safdar wound up his arguments, the bench announced that the proceedings would resume in the afternoon. 

THE MURDER

Noor was found murdered at a residence in Islamabad’s upscale Sector F-7/4 on July 20, 2021. An FIR was registered later the same day against Zahir Jaffer, who was arrested at the site of the murder.

In February 2022, a district and sessions judge sentenced Jaffer to death for the murder and 25 years rigorous imprisonment for rape. His watchman Mohammad Iftikhar and gardener Jan Mohammad were each sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Zahir’s parents, leading businessman Zakir Jaffer and Asmat Adamji, had been indicted by an Islamabad district and sessions court in October 2021 but were later acquitted.

Six officials of Therapy Works, whose employees had visited the place of the murder before police, were also indicted by the lower court but were later acquitted. According to the case report, the parents and the Therapy workers attempted to conceal the crime and destroy the evidence.

In March 2023, the IHC dismissed the convict’s appeal and upheld the death sentence. The court converted his 25-year jail term into another death penalty. The IHC had also rejected the pleas of his staff.

In April 2023, Zahir moved the Supreme Court against the IHC verdict, insisting that his conviction resulted from “erroneous appreciation” of the evidence and the high court and trial court could not identify the “fundamental flaws” in the FIR.





Recommended Articles