The Supreme Court has rejected the review petition of convict Zahir Jaffer in the Noor Mukadam murder case, maintaining his death sentence.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Hashim Kakar heard the review petition and announced the verdict after a hearing that lasted around four hours. The bench also comprised Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim that gave a unanimous verdict.
The Supreme Court ruled that Zahir Jaffer’s death sentence would remain intact. The court also rejected a request to constitute a medical board to examine the convict’s mental condition.
The bench heard detailed arguments before dismissing the review petition filed against the death penalty.
Senior lawyer Khawaja Haris appeared before the court on behalf of convict Zahir Jaffer. Advocate Shah Khawar represented the parents of Noor Mukadam during the proceedings.
At the start of his arguments, Khawaja Haris said he accepted that Noor Mukadam had been wronged and apologized to the victim’s family.
Defence focuses on mental health
Khawaja Haris told the court that the central point of his arguments was the mental state of the convict at the time of the incident and during the trial. He said he would not claim that his client was not present at the time of the incident.
“I will not say at all that my client did not commit the murder,” Khawaja Haris argued.
The lawyer maintained that Jaffer’s mental condition was not stable at the time of the incident or during the trial. He said the convict had been given medicines in jail and that the record showed he was taking medication for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression.
According to Haris, these are illnesses in which a patient can suddenly become aggressive.
Judges question medical record
Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim asked the defence to show a record proving when the convict’s treatment had started. He also asked whether the convict was undergoing treatment at the time of the incident.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar asked the lawyer to prove when the convict fell ill and which doctor treated him. The judge observed that if the convict had a medical history, it could have been available through his friends, school, college or university records.
Khawaja Haris presented a letter from London’s Harley Street Clinic before the court.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar noted that the letter was dated 2022. He questioned whether the convict had gone to London himself after the incident to obtain the letter.
Justice Panhwar also remarked that the defence was arguing the convict did not get a lawyer of his choice, but at the same time a letter had arrived from London. He described the situation as unusual.
Defence raises drug-test issue
Khawaja Haris argued that it was surprising that the victim was tested but the convict was not tested for intoxication. He asked why the prosecution did not conduct a drug test of the convict.
The lawyer claimed that due to the kind of reporting taking place during the trial, the prosecution did not conduct the test under pressure. He said social media narratives suggested that the convict would be saved if he was proved to be a drug addict.
Haris also argued, with apology, that the trial judge had taken pressure from media coverage.
Justice Kakar rejected the argument that courts decide matters under media or social media pressure.
“This court does not decide on reporting nor does it come under the pressure of social media,” Justice Kakar remarked.
Justice Panhwar told Khawaja Haris that there was a contradiction in his arguments. The judge observed that the defence was arguing the convict was not mentally healthy at the time of the murder, which, he said, appeared to validate the social media comments being referred to by the lawyer.
Court asks what relief is being sought
Justice Kakar asked what relief the defence wanted in the review petition if the court accepted the argument that the convict was mentally unwell. He also questioned what benefit a drug test would have provided to the defence even if it had been conducted.
Khawaja Haris said the defence had requested during the trial that a medical board be formed, but the request had been rejected. He added that a separate application for a medical board had also been filed in the Supreme Court in the main case.
Haris argued that, in light of past decisions, the Supreme Court could examine the merits of a case during review proceedings. He said the court had ordered retrials in previous decisions.
However, he clarified that he was not seeking a retrial in this case. “I am not requesting a retrial, but a reduction in the sentence,” Khawaja Haris submitted.
He argued that while awarding the death sentence, the court should have considered the complete facts.
Judges note medical board issue became final
Justice Ibrahim observed that the trial court had rejected the application for the formation of a medical board. He noted that the rejection of the medical board request was not challenged before the high court.
“The matter of the medical board has now become final,” Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim remarked.
Remarks on violence against women
During the hearing, Justice Kakar made strong remarks about violence against women.
“It is a society of men,” he observed, adding that six cases had been heard and wives had been killed in all of them. He said that in one case, there was a dispute between two men, but the wives of both men were killed.
Justice Kakar also said that Justice Baqar Najafi’s note regarding Noor Mukadam was his personal opinion.
Court criticises prolonged arguments
During the proceedings, Justice Hashim Kakar addressed Khawaja Haris and remarked that if a lawyer like him had been engaged from the beginning, the convict might not have had to face the current situation.
The judge also told the lawyer that the bench had been listening to him for hours and asked him to show some grace. After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition and maintained the death sentence.
Father alleges settlement offer
Speaking after the Supreme Court's verdict, Noor's father, Shaukat Mukadam, said he had been approached through a third party and offered a settlement.
“I made it clear that I would not compromise under any circumstances,” he said. Shaukat Mukadam emphasized that the case was not only about his daughter but about justice for all women in Pakistan.
“This is not just Noor Mukadam’s case. I stand with all the daughters of Pakistan,” he said. He also stated that no one has the right to threaten him and stressed the importance of speaking out against violence against women.
“If women are abducted, held hostage and murdered, can civil society remain silent?” he asked. “That is why I stood up, and I will continue to stand up for justice."
