Noor Mukadam case: Convict Zahir Jaffer files review plea in SC

Zahir Zakir Jaffer on Tuesday sought a review of the Supreme Court verdict that upheld his death sentence for the gruesome 2021 murder of Noor Mukadam in Islamabad.

Noor, aged 27 years, was found murdered at Zahir’s Islamabad residence in July 2021, with the probe revealing she was tortured by him before being beheaded. Zahir’s death sentence by the trial court had already been upheld by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The 47-page review petition, a copy of which is available with media.com, was filed by Advocate Khawaja Haris on behalf of Zahir under Article 188 of the Constitution (review of judgments or orders by SC). The state and Noor’s father, Shaukat Ali Muqadam, were made the respondents.

The petition contended that the “plea of unsoundness of mind and mental
incapacity was also given short shrift by the learned trial court”.

{try{this.style.height=this.contentWindow.document.body.scrollHeight+’px’;}catch{}}, 100)”
width=”100%” frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no” style=”height:250px;position:relative”
src=”
sandbox=”allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-popups allow-modals allow-forms”>

It further said that “hype created on social media […] constantly created hatred towards the petitioner throughout the investigation and the trial (and even at appeal stage)”, which breached Zahir’s right to fair trial and due process.

“In [the] process of hurry, mistakes were made in the investigation and during trial,” the petition quoted a verdict from another case.

Zahir is also contemplating filing a mercy petition before President Asif Ali Zardari, with a letter by jail authorities seeking the formation of a medical board so its opinion could be included in the plea. A presidential pardon under Article 45 of the Constitution could provide Zahir pardon or reprieve, or remit, suspend or commute his sentence.

The SC had commuted Zahir’s death sentence on the rape charge to life imprisonment and reduced his sentence for kidnapping from ten years to one year — notably not acquitting him of either of the offences.

On the rape charges, the review plea argued that it was “apparent from the record that there is no evidence on the record in proof of this allegation”.

More to follow