Detailed document shows police traced killer through victim’s mobile phone, convicted confessed to judge
Sana Yousaf was shot dead for rejecting a man’s advances. Photo: File
ISLAMABAD:
Details of the verdict that convicted Umar Hayat of the murder of 17-year-old Sana Yousaf revealed that he had confessed to a judge to killing the teenage TikToker after she refused to meet him, and that police had traced him through a contact saved as “Kaka” on the phone’s mobile phone.
An extra sessions court in Islamabad on Tuesday sentenced Hayat to death for Sana’s murder. The social media influencer was shot dead inside her home in Sector G-13/1 in June 2025 after she refused to meet the convict. Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka announced the verdict convicting Hayat, son of Amjad Javed, a resident of Jaranwala, Faisalabad, of murder, robbery, trespassing and possession of stolen property.
The court found that the prosecution had presented “overwhelming evidence” against the convict and ruled that he did not deserve any leniency.
According to the verdict, on the afternoon of June 2, Sana was at home with her mother Farzana Yousaf and her aunt Latifa Shah. Her father, Yousaf Hassan, had stepped out of the house to work, while her younger brother had gone to Chitral.
At approximately 5:00 p.m., Hayat entered the house armed with a 30-bore gun. He proceeded straight to Sana’s room and fired two shots at her chest. After the shooting, he took the victim’s cell phone and fled the scene.
The commotion brought neighbors to the street, where Sana was taken to KRL Hospital in a neighbor’s vehicle, where she was pronounced dead. She was subsequently shifted to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences.
The autopsy recorded two entry wounds and two exit wounds on Sana’s chest and back. The cause of death was determined to be cardiopulmonary arrest as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest that caused damage to vital organs – particularly the heart and lungs.
Meanwhile, according to the autopsy, the time between injury and death was about two to three minutes.
The postmortem report concluded that all injuries were ante mortem in nature and “were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.”
Read: Sana Yousaf murder case: Parents praise court verdict, call for public hanging of convict
The FIR registered at the Sumbul police station did not initially name any suspect. Investigating Officer (IO) Fakhar Abbas then started gathering the identity of the accused through the victim’s own mobile phone which was retrieved from her room during spot inspection.
Examining the phone, IO found a contact saved as “Kaka”. The holder of the number was revealed to have come to Islamabad in an attempt to meet Sana, who had not responded to him. Location data placed the number in Sector G-14 at 9.30pm on the day of the murder, and the number was registered in Hayat’s name.
The IO along with a police team went to Jaranwala. When they arrived at Amin Park, they were met on the street by a boy who, upon being asked his name, identified himself as Hayat. The victim’s missing mobile phone was found on him at the scene and he was formally arrested on 3 June.
Later, the court heard testimony from two independent witnesses who proved instrumental in establishing Hayat’s movements on the day of the murder.
Ahmad Khan, who runs a car rental business in G-11 Markaz, Islamabad, testified that around 2:30 pm on June 2, a young man came to his office, introduced himself as Umar Hayat, and demanded a vehicle for rent. A black Toyota Fortuner along with the driver Muhammad Wakeel was handed over to the convict.
Wakeel testified that he drove Hayat towards G-13/1 where he asked Wakeel to stop the vehicle and proceeded on foot. The convict then returned to the vehicle at about 5:15 p.m., worried. He directed the driver towards Servicevej G-13/1, near the railway bridge, where he stopped the vehicle on the pretext of answering a call and walked towards the bushes.
After returning, he instructed the driver to drop him at Chungi, from where he left. It was from under the same railway bridge that the murder weapon – a 30-bore pistol – was later found on Hayat’s tip.
Read more: Our grief is not justice: The council that killed Sana Yousaf never hid
On June 23, the convict expressed a desire to make a statement before a judge. He was produced before the Assistant Commissioner and recorded his confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In his confession, he stated that he was also a TikToker and followed Sana on social media.
He said that he had come from Jaranwala to Islamabad to meet her, but she refused to see him, causing him great distress. After this rejection, he went to Sana’s house and in the presence of two women fired two shots, took Sana’s mobile phone and fled.
Hayat concluded his statement by saying, “I committed a very grave mistake in killing Sana Yousaf. I regret my crime of killing a flower-like young girl in the most brutal way. My conscience blames me every moment.”
The convict later retracted this confession, claiming he had been falsely implicated.
However, the court noted that Hayat had not produced any evidence to show that the confession was given under duress and that under Article 91 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Ordinance, 1984, a confession recorded in accordance with law before a magistrate is presumed to be true.
Further, the court found that the prosecution had built its case on mutually corroborating evidence. According to the verdict, the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence against the accused.
Eyewitness accounts were corroborated while fingerprints lifted from a mirror inside the victim’s room by the forensic team were matched, via NADRA records, to Hayat’s National Identity Card. Furthermore, the firearms report confirmed that empty cartridges recovered from the scene had been fired from the same 30-bore pistol found on Hayat’s tip.
The mobile phone of the victim, which was recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest, was also identified by her father.
Judge Majoka convicted Hayat under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), ordered death by hanging for Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder) and ordered a compensation of Rs 2,000,000 to be paid to Sana’s heirs under Section 544-A of the CrPC.
Under Section 392 of the PPC, on the robbery-related charge, Hayat was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 200,000. In the event of non-payment of the fine, an additional two months’ imprisonment applies.
Under section 411 of the PPC, which deals with stolen property, the convict was sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs100,000, with one month’s simple imprisonment in case of non-payment.
Read also: ‘We will not forget you’
Finally, on the trespassing charge, the court sentenced Hayat under Section 449 of the PPC to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs200,000 and a further two months imprisonment in default of payment.
According to the judgement, all the sentences are to run concurrently while the death sentence is subject to confirmation by the Islamabad High Court to which the murder reference has been sent under Section 374 of the CrPC. The convict has also been informed of his right to appeal within 30 days.
The court noted in the judgment, “The accused, due to failure to meet the deceased, has committed the murder of an innocent girl of about seventeen years. There is no mitigating circumstance, therefore the accused does not deserve any leniency.”
