• In additional note on Noor Mukadam murder case, Justice Najafi terms non-marital relations ‘a revolt against Sharia’
• Rejects convict’s insanity plea, says minor discrepancies no grounds to overturn death sentence
ISLAMABAD: Justice Ali Baqar Najafi — a member of the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court that had upheld the death penalty awarded to Noor Mukadam’s murderer — attributed the ghastly 2021 murder to what he described as a vice prevalent in society.
In his additional note, which surfaced on Wednesday, the judge observed that societal compulsions in such non-marital long-term relationships are ignored in order to defy not only the law of the land, but also personal law under Islamic Sharia which, he regretted, amounted to a direct revolt against Islam.
The younger generation, he warned, must understand the horrible consequences of live-in relationships, which he referred to as ‘living relationships’, adding that the issue should also be taken up by social reformists in their circles.
Justice Najafi, now elevated as a judge of the newly established Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, was part of the three-judge SC bench that confirmed the murderer Zahir Zakir Jaffer’s death sentence on May 20, 2025.
While deciding the appeal, Justice Najafi had also cautioned that the state should sensitise the younger generation about the perils of live-in relationships, describing the practice as a source of societal decay.
Noor Mukadam, 27, was found brutally murdered at Jaffer’s residence in the upscale Sector F-7/4 on July 20, 2021.
Following the discovery of her body, Jaffer was arrested as the prime suspect. A trial court in Islamabad on Feb 24, 2022 sentenced him to death. It also found him guilty of rape, handing down 25 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs200,000.
On March 14, an Islamabad High Court bench upheld the sentence, converting his life term into a second death sentence.
In his seven-page additional note, Justice Najafi also addressed the plea of insanity taken by the convict, saying there was no evidence showing that the petitioner had ever consulted any psychiatrist, therapy worker or consumed any drug, the absence of which, or due to which, he became furious and lost control of his mind.
Justice Najafi also held that no mitigating circumstances existed in the case, adding that minor discrepancies did not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which proved the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting capital punishment.
The additional note stated that in his statement under Section 342 CrPC, the petitioner claimed that “a drug party” was arranged at his house on the victim’s insistence, during which she allegedly consumed excessive drugs and lost control.
This version, Justice Najafi noted, was disproved because no intoxicant was detected in the medical examination of either the deceased or the petitioner, nor was any guest of a “drug party” seen in the CCTV footage.
Published in Dawn, November 27th, 2025