ISLAMABAD: Being an Islamic Republic, it is a Constitutional duty that society should exhibit exemplary behaviour when it comes to the protection, honour and rights of women, and any violation of their sanctity should be treated a betrayal of both divine law and national values, the Supreme Court observed.
The observation came in a 12-page detailed judgement, to explaining why a three-judge bench on June 4 had thrown out the review petition of convict Zahir Zakir Jaffer, upholding the death sentence awarded to him for the ghastly 2021 murder of Noor Mukadam.
On May 20, 2025 the Supreme Court had confirmed the death penalty awarded to Jaffer, rejecting his appeal.
Noor, 27, was found brutally murdered at Jaffer’s residence in Islamabad’s upscale Sector F-7/4 on July 20, 2021. Following the discovery of her body, Jaffer was arrested as the prime suspect in the case.
Review petition of Noor Mukadam’s murderer rejected for being ‘an appeal in disguise’, detailed judgement explains
An Islamabad trial court sentenced Jaffer to death on February 24, 2022, and also found him guilty of rape, handed down 25 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs200,000.
A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) upheld Jaffar’s death sentence on March 14, 2025.
Authored by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, the detailed verdict explained that petitions under Article 188 of the Constitution to review court judgments or orders was not, and could not be permitted to be, an appeal in disguise.
It does not provide a forum for rehearing of the case, for re-arguing matters already canvassed and decided, for reappraisal of evidence, re-evaluation of ocular testimony or for reopening concluded questions of fact, the judgement explained.
In criminal matters, the jurisdiction of review is circumscribed within narrow contours and can be invoked only where an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated, or where interference is warranted in the interest of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court, the judgment said.
Any attempt to invite the court to reassess evidence or revisit findings of fact is clearly beyond the scope of review jurisdiction, it said.
Regarding the plea of Jaffer’s mental illness, the court said it had carefully examined the record and found no substance, since the plea did not find favour with the trial court, the high court, or the Supreme Court at the stage of deciding the criminal petition.
The principal document relied upon by Advocate Khawaja Haris Ahmed, the counsel for the petitioner, in support of the plea of mental illness was a letter issued by Dr Philip Hopley, a consultant psychiatrist based in London’s Harley Street.
The letter showed that the petitioner was examined on April 21, 2015 and was found to be suffering from a drug-induced psychotic episode.
However, the same document further records that the petitioner was referred for psychological treatment and remained engaged in a course of therapy for approximately six months, after which he made a full recovery.
The Supreme Court also expressed grave concern over increasing instances of femicide. “The structural architecture of this crime indicates that the termination of a woman’s life is rarely an isolated, spontaneous event rather, it represents the lethal culmination of a systematic, gender-motivated continuum of violence,” the judgement regretted.
Published in Dawn, August 21st, 2026
