The defense claims Jaffer believed he was a spiritual leader and viewed the victim as a victim
Pakistani-American Zahir Jaffer (C), convicted of rape and murder, arrives at a court in Islamabad. Photo: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the revision petition filed by Zahir Jaffer, the main convict in the murder of Noor Mukadam, and upheld its earlier judgment upholding his death sentence.
Noor Mukadam, 27, daughter of former diplomat Shaukat Mukadam, was murdered and beheaded at a posh place in Islamabad in July 2021. Police had charged Jaffer, a US citizen and heir to the Jaffer Group of Companies, with the crime.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Hashim Kakar announced the decision after hearing arguments for nearly four hours. The bench also rejected a plea for the formation of a medical board to assess Jaffer’s mental health.
During the hearing, Jaffer’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, admitted that Noor had suffered a grave injustice and apologized to her family.
He said his arguments centered on his client’s mental state at the time of the incident rather than disputing his presence at the crime scene. “I accept that my client was present at the scene,” Haris said. “I will not argue that my client did not commit the murder.”
Haris argued that his client suffered from mental illness and was unable to properly understand or participate in legal proceedings.
Citing material presented during the trial, Haris told the court that reports had suggested Jaffer believed he was a spiritual leader and viewed the victim as a victim. “My client is mentally ill. He can’t even sign properly,” he argued.
The defense maintained that Jaffer suffered from mental disorders, including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression, and had taken medication for these conditions.
Haris claimed that the convict’s mental state was not properly investigated during the trial and noted that medication continued to be given to him in prison. “My question is why the prosecution did not conduct a drug test on the accused,” he said.
Read more: Noor Mukadam case: SC to hear Zahir Jaffer’s review plea on April 8
He further argued that extensive media coverage and public comment during the trial created pressures that discouraged investigators from pursuing such tests.
“At that time, social media was full of claims that evidence that the accused was addicted to drugs would be used to exonerate him,” he said. He also suggested that the trial court had been swayed by media scrutiny, leading to a response from the bench.
“This court neither decides cases on newspaper reports nor comes under pressure from social media,” Justice Kakar replied. The judges repeatedly questioned the defense’s position, asking for evidence showing when Jaffer’s treatment began, whether he was being treated at the time of the murder and which doctors had made the diagnosis.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar noted that the defense appeared to be relying on assumptions rather than documented evidence. “You say his mental state was not normal at the time of the incident,” Judge Panhwar said. “That would mean you’re effectively validating the same comment on social media that you’re criticizing.”
The court also questioned a letter from London’s Harley Street Clinic submitted by the defence. Justice Panhwar noted that the document was dated 2022, after the murder had taken place. “It is strange that the accused could not get a lawyer of his choice, yet a letter came to him from London,” remarked the judge.
The bench also pointed out that requests to form a medical board had already been rejected during the trial and were not subsequently challenged before the Islamabad High Court. “That case has already reached finality,” Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim observed.
“Suppose we accept that the accused’s mental state was not normal. What relief do you want to review?” Justice Kakar asked. “If a drug test had been done, what benefit would it have given you?”
Read more: Noor Mukadam murder: SC rejects Zahir Jaffer’s appeal, upholds death sentence
Haris responded that he did not want a retrial but a reduced sentence, arguing that all relevant facts should have been considered before imposing the death penalty. At one point, Justice Hashim Kakar remarked that if Jaffer had retained a lawyer of Haris’ caliber at the outset, “the accused might not have to see this day”.
Advocate Shah Khawar, representing Noor’s parents, opposed the plea and defended the earlier conviction and sentence.
During the hearing, the defender also referred to the media’s coverage of the case during the trial, which gave rise to comments from the court about the role of media reporting. “We are not sitting here to listen to news reports,” Judge Ibrahim noted.
Justice Kakar noted that media reports and comments on social media often differed from actual court proceedings. “Sometimes we say one thing and it gets reported differently,” he noted. “Newspapers report one version, while vloggers present something completely different.” Justice Panhwar added that “everyone expresses their own opinion.”
At one point during the hearing, Justice Kakar noted that the court had adjourned other cases to hear the case, saying, “We have adjourned all our other cases today.”
The hearing included a brief recess, during which the court indicated its intention to conclude the case on the same day. After hearing arguments, the bench rejected the review requests and upheld Jaffer’s death sentence.
The case
In February 2022, a district court convicted Jaffer of murder and sentenced him to death along with 25 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200,000. His household staff, Iftikhar and Jameel, were sentenced to 10 years in prison, while other accused, including Jaffer’s parents and TherapyWorks employees, were acquitted.
On 14 March 2023, the Islamabad High Court upheld Jaffer’s death sentence, converting his 25-year sentence to another death sentence on rape charges.
Subsequently, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Kakar, on May 20 dismissed Jaffer’s appeal and upheld the death sentence in the case. In a detailed judgment handed down in June that year, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction for murder, describing him as “a ruthless killer” who was “not worthy of sympathy”.
But while upholding the death penalty for murder, the court commuted the death sentence for rape to life imprisonment. Jaffer was acquitted of the abduction charge, although his conviction for unlawful confinement was upheld.
The court also upheld the convictions of co-accused Iftikhar and Jameel, but ordered their release on the grounds that they had already served sufficient time. The judgment noted that Justice Ali Baqar Najafi would add a supplementary note.
