ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday resumed hearing the appeal of Zahir Jaffer — convicted and sentenced to death for the brutal 2021 murder of Noor Mukadam — with his counsel arguing that no medical board was ever constituted to assess his client’s mental health during trial proceedings.
The court, led by Justice Hashim Kakar and comprising Justices Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Ali Baqar Najafi, adjourned the hearing until Tuesday, allowing Zahir’s lawyer to conclude his arguments. Advocate Shah Khawar, representing Noor’s father, retired ambassador Shaukat Mukadam, is scheduled to respond next.
Defence Claims Mental Illness Ignored
Barrister Salman Safdar, appearing on behalf of the convict, submitted a decade-long record of Zahir’s medical history to the bench. He maintained that the trial court had failed to properly examine Zahir’s mental condition and that the accused had not been medically fit at any point during the legal proceedings.
“My client’s mental state was not stable when the incident occurred,” Safdar argued. “No medical board was formed at any stage, which is a serious oversight in a case of this nature.”
Justice Kakar questioned the timing of the plea, asking why no formal application for a mental health evaluation was submitted during the trial. “You should have filed an application at the appropriate stage,” the judge remarked. “Courts cannot act retroactively when objections are raised at the eleventh hour.”
The court was informed that the sessions court had earlier rejected an application to form a medical board in January 2022, observing that the request was made near the end of the trial without substantive evidence or prior record. The trial court had ruled that the move appeared to be a tactic to escape criminal liability.
Circumstantial Evidence and Trial Record
Safdar also raised concerns regarding what he described as procedural gaps in the investigation. He pointed out that only the murder charge was initially included in the first information report (FIR), with additional allegations such as rape and kidnapping added 22 days later.
He claimed there was no forensic evidence proving the crime occurred at Zahir’s residence, despite police statements and DNA reports confirming the presence of the victim’s blood on the weapon recovered from the scene.
Further, he noted that Zahir had pleaded not guilty and that no eyewitnesses were presented besides officials. Justice Kakar agreed, stating that “all evidence in this case is circumstantial,” but also remarked that strict reliance on procedural formalities often hinders justice.
Barrister Safdar also pointed to inconsistencies in the timeline, stating that the FIR was lodged at 11:30 pm, shortly after the alleged murder at 10 pm, and prior to the post-mortem conducted early the next morning. He questioned how the police could be so certain of the cause and time of death so quickly.
Therapy Works and Other Allegations
The defence counsel criticised the handling of Amjad, an employee of Therapy Works who was injured during the attempted intervention, stating that he was made a suspect rather than a key witness. Safdar alleged that crucial evidence, such as CCTV footage, had been selectively used against Zahir.
During earlier hearings, he had referenced the leaked video controversy involving former accountability court judge Arshad Malik, comparing the situation to what he termed reliance on questionable digital evidence in this case.
Judiciary’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench signaled it would expedite the process and not allow further delays. Justice Kakar noted the longstanding practice of appeal hearings being delayed for years, leaving death row prisoners in prolonged uncertainty.
“This will not happen now,” he asserted. “Individuals cannot be kept in death cells indefinitely. Judges must show resolve and not keep adjourning hearings without reason.”
The court made it clear that while all arguments would be heard fairly, a decision would follow without undue delay.
Co-Accused Appeals and Background
The bench is also hearing the appeals of other co-accused, including the challenge by Noor’s father against the acquittal of Zahir’s parents, Zakir Jaffer and Asmat Adamjee, who were initially indicted for allegedly attempting to cover up the crime but later cleared by the trial court.
The murder of Noor Mukadam — a 27-year-old daughter of a former Pakistani diplomat — had sent shockwaves across the country and received widespread media and public attention. Noor was found beheaded at Zahir’s residence in Sector F-7/4, Islamabad, on July 20, 2021.
Police said Zahir, who was arrested from the scene, confessed to the murder and was forensically linked to the crime. The trial court, in February 2022, sentenced him to death for both murder and rape, while two household staff members — Mohammad Iftikhar and Jan Mohammad — were given 10 years’ imprisonment each. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) later upheld the death sentences and even enhanced the 25-year rape sentence into a second death penalty.
In April 2023, Zahir filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, claiming that both the trial court and the IHC had misjudged key aspects of the evidence and failed to account for his alleged mental illness.
Noor’s Family Seeks Closure
The Mukadam family has repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to expedite proceedings, citing the emotional toll of the prolonged trial. In October last year, Shaukat Mukadam appealed to the apex court to conclude the matter, which had been pending for over 18 months.
The family maintains that the trial court had rightly convicted Zahir based on forensic and circumstantial evidence and that the defence’s arguments are intended to delay justice.
The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, when both sides are expected to conclude their arguments. The case remains one of the most closely watched in recent judicial memory, emblematic of both the public’s demand for accountability and the legal system’s challenges in high-profile criminal trials.
