ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the review petition of convict Zahir Zakir Jaffer, upholding the death sentence awarded to him for the 2021 murder of Noor Mukadam.

“Sorry,” pronounced Justice Mohammad Hashim Khan Kakar in a one-word decree after a prolonged hearing stretching over more than four hours. Justice Kakar was heading a three-judge Supreme Court bench also consisting of Justice Salahuddin Panwhar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim that had taken up the review petition argued by senior counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed.

During the hearing, Justice Kakar made it clear that the court will not go into the merits of the case but on the quantum of the sentence.

Inside the courtroom No 5, where the hearing took place, the father of the convict also heard the entire proceedings patiently.

Though it took time, justice has been well served by judiciary, says deceased’s father

On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court had confirmed the death penalty awarded to Jaffer by rejecting his appeal for the murder that sent shock waves in society.

Noor, 27, was found murdered at Jaffer’s residence in Sector F-7/4 of Islamabad on July 20, 2021. Following the discovery of the body, Jaffer was arrested as the prime suspect in the case.

A trial court in Islamabad on February 24, 2022, sentenced him to death. The court also found Jaffer guilty of rape and handed him over 25 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs200,000.

A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on March 14, 2025, upheld the death sentence of the convict.

In the June 10, 2025 detailed verdict, the apex court expounded on the significance of digital evidence, ruling that video footage can be admissible under the ‘silent witness theory,’ provided it is properly authenticated, eliminating the need for an eyewitness to testify about the crime.

Soon after Supreme Court’s rejection of the review petition, Shaukat Mukadam, the father of Noor, who was represented by senior counsel Shah Khawar, revealed that he was approached during the case for the settlement of the matter, but he stayed away since this was not Noor Muqaddam’s case alone, rather of all daughters of Pakistan.

In a choked voice, Shaukat Mukadam said that he stand with all daughters of Pakistan, adding he cannot be purchased through influence or money. He said he was grateful to the civil society, especially media, adding though it took time, justice had been well served by the judiciary.

During the hearing, Khawaja Haris argued that though the medical test of the deceased to determine whether she was under the influence of drugs was conducted no such examination was done on the convict.

Moreover, the video clip of the CCTV recording was never played before the high court. But Justice Kakar reminded that the video clip was even played before the Supreme Court and though his colleagues had witnessed it, he kept his eyes closed since it was too gruesome. Moreover, the clip was also available in the social media and that the trial court had also examined it, Justice Kakar observed.

The counsel contended that the footage was transferred to the hard disk and thus prone to editing. Besides, whatever played before the high court was through USB. Therefore, the veracity of the recording is doubtful, he said.

On the other hand, Shah Khawar contended that during the proceedings right from the trial stage, the convict was represented through a counsel.

And to satisfy himself about the mental health of the convict, the trial judge even had a conversation with the convict for half an hour in private and later dismissed his application, seeking medical examination.

The counsel contended that a drug test was conduct on Noor Mukadam since it was a normal procedure during autopsy procedure to determine the cause of death of the deceased.

In his review petition, Jaffer had pleaded that the hype created on social media after the death of Noor Mukadam had created hatred towards him throughout the investigation and the trial, even at the appeal stage, thus significantly breaching his fundamental right to a fair trial and due process.

Moreover, the May 20, 2025, judgement did not address the issue of unsoundness of mind or mental capacity of the petitioner that was raised before the court, the review petition pleaded, adding the plea was of immense significance for the validity of the trial as well as for purposes of determination of his culpability and quantum of sentence.

The petition regretted that his trial was influenced by a planned and sustained campaign launched on social media by the complainant; therefore, the trial judge never made any effort to consider his plea within the framework of law.

Published in Dawn, June 5th, 2026