During the hearing of the Noor Mukadam murder case in the Supreme Court, the accused, Zahir Jaffer’s lawyer, Salman Safdar, presented arguments on various aspects of the case, while the court indicated it would announce a decision after hearing both parties today.

Lawyer Salman Safdar informed the court that a complete medical history of the accused from 2013 to the present had been submitted. He noted that the trial court had sentenced the accused to death for murder, life imprisonment for rape, and ten years for abduction, but the Islamabad High Court had increased the rape sentence to death.

He further stated that the initial FIR was registered only for murder, with charges of rape and abduction added 22 days after the incident. According to the lawyer, the crime scene was the accused’s personal home, yet no evidence was presented regarding this.

Salman Safdar argued that the incident occurred at 10pm, while the FIR was filed at 11:30pm, and the post-mortem was conducted at 9:30am, indicating that Noor Mukadam had died at 12:10am.

He added that a wounded witness, Amjad, was turned into an accused by the police, and the evidence relied solely on CCTV footage.

He pointed out that the murder weapon was a small knife that did not have the accused’s fingerprints on it, and all witnesses, except for the complainant, Shaukat Mukadam, were government officials.

Salman Safdar maintained that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and all evidence was circumstantial.

During the hearing, Justice Hashim Kakar remarked that judges should take some time to consider, stating it was not acceptable to approve an appeal and then not hear the case.

Read more

Father of Noor Mukadam wants speedy trial of case against convict

Court upholds Zahir Jaffer’s death sentence for Noor Mukadam murder

Foreign passport means nothing, court tells Zahir Jaffer

He emphasized that people should not remain on death row for ten years, adding that if the second bench scheduled for 11:30am did not break, the Noor Mukadam case would be heard at 1pm; otherwise, it would be heard first.

Salman Safdar also referenced the Judge Arshad Malik video scandal, to which Justice Hashim Kakar replied that relying on parameters would be as difficult as proving something while standing in the Kaaba.

The court took a break during the hearing and indicated that it would announce a decision after hearing both parties today. Justice Hashim Kakar stated that if relief seemed appropriate, it would be granted; otherwise, it would be dismissed.