Further note in the judgment upheld the sentence, stating the crime as symptomatic of altered social behaviour
ISLAMABAD:
Judge Ali Baqar Najafi has characterized the Noor Mukadam murder case as the product of a “vice” by taking root in society, which he called a “live-in relationship” – apparently referring to live-in relationships.
His remarks, made in a supplementary memorandum to the Supreme Court judgment and published on Wednesday, introduced a new moral layer in one of the country’s most scrutinized and horrific criminal cases.
The supplementary note confirmed the sentence and indicated the crime as symptomatic of altered social behavior.
Judge Najafi, who was recently elevated to the newly constituted Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), wrote that “the present case is a direct result of a vice that has spread in the upper society that we know as ‘living relationships.’ [sic]”, claiming that such arrangements flout “societal compulsions” and “defy not only the law of the land but also the personal law” under Sharia.
He went on to describe participation in such a relationship as “a direct rebellion against Almighty Allah”, and urged younger Pakistanis to reflect on its “horrendous consequences, as in this case, which is also a topic for social reformers to discuss in their circles”.
The judge also held that there were “no mitigating circumstances” for Zahir’s actions, rejecting what the defense had tried to portray as flaws in the prosecution’s case.
He wrote that “minor inconsistencies in the timing of the incident, the delay in the postmortem, the absence of fingerprints on the knife but matched with the petitioner’s DNA, minor delays in filing the first information would not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which had circumstantial evidence”, and concluded that “in this case, the unique evidence found is that of Noor Mukadam’s dead body and the other end tied with the petitioner’s neck.”
Justice Najafi also addressed the delay in registration of FIR at 11:30 p.m., about two hours after the murder. He noted that the statement by Noor’s father, retired diplomat Shaukat Mukadam, on “receiving the information [ ] whether the murder of his daughter is well-confirmed”.
He noted that such a delay was perfectly understandable. “It is natural that after reaching the place of incident, the complainant who was the real father of the victim required some time and extraordinary nerves to absorb the extreme shock of his life and then prepare the complaint for registration of FIR.”
He similarly dismissed concerns about the timing of the autopsy, noting that although the autopsy took place eight to nine hours after death, “this delay in performing the autopsy of about 12 hours is not fatal”.
Among the evidence he highlighted was CCTV footage from the residence, which captured Noor jumping from a window and “limping towards the main gate to escape”, only to find that watchman Mohammad Iftikhar had locked it.
The note states that Zahir “snapped the mobile phone [the] deceased, locked her in the outer cabin”, later opened it to physically assault her when gardener Muhammad Jan “made no effort to stop” him.
“She was then dragged back into the petitioner’s house, which was her last glimpse in the CCTV footage. The unseen incident by the eye of the camera and the scene was recorded.”
“It was not only seeing the petitioner (Zahir) with the deceased (Noor) before the unnatural death caused in the most brutal manner, but there is circumstantial evidence which links the petitioner with criminality,” Justice Najafi observed.
“Furthermore, the said stolen mobile phone had been recovered by the petitioner from his possession in a recovery memo.”
The judge rejected Zahir’s attempt to blame the killing on drug use, writing that his claim was “found wrong” as medical reports did not detect any drugs on either party, nor did CCTV show any “guest at drug party”.
He also rejected the plea of insanity, noting “no evidence that the petitioner used to consult any psychiatrists, therapists or consume any drug, in the absence of which, or because of which, he became enraged and went out of his mind”.
Blame the victim
Justice Najafi’s framing of the crime as a symptom of moral decay generated criticism from both legal and civil society.
Commenting on Justice Najfi’s observations, Advocate Maha Raja said this was “a sad state of affairs which is unfortunately depicted in the highest echelons of justice”.
Instead of preaching to society, the judiciary needs to correct its course, she added.
“Noor Mukadam symbolizes a society that is sadly succumbing to these appalling justifications for an evaporating justice system that fails to tighten its fist against societal injustices and blames the victims,” she lamented.
