The Supreme Courtroom (SC) on Thursday dismissed a assessment petition filed by Zahir Jaffer and maintained its earlier verdict upholding his dying sentence within the Noor Mukadam homicide case.
Noor, aged 27, was discovered murdered at Zahir’s Islamabad residence in July 2021, with the probe revealing she was tortured by him earlier than being beheaded. Zahir was sentenced to dying by a trial in February 2022 and his sentence has already been upheld by the SC as soon as. Previous to that, the Islamabad Excessive Courtroom had additionally dismissed his plea difficult the trial court docket’s verdict.
A 3-member bench comprising Justices Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Pahnwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim heard Zahir’s assessment plea on Thursday.
Advocate Khawaja Haris appeared as Zahir’s counsel, whereas Shah Khawar was current from the respondents’ aspect. Each introduced their arguments throughout as we speak’s listening to, following which the bench introduced its verdict.
After as we speak’s ruling by the SC, a presidential pardon below Article 45 of the Structure may presumably present Zahir pardon, or reprieve, or remit, droop or commute his sentence.
Zahir had sought a assessment of that SC verdict that upheld his dying sentence on Could 20, 2025.
The SC’s Could 2025 ruling had commuted Zahir’s dying sentence on the rape cost to life imprisonment, as determined by the trial court dockethowever didn’t acquit him of it.
Whereas he was acquitted of the 10-year sentence for kidnapping, a one-year time period was handed down for wrongful confinement below Section 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code, in response to the SC verdict.
The 47-page assessment petition was filed by Advocate Khawaja Haris on behalf of Zahir below Article 188 of the Structure (assessment of judgments or orders by SC). The state and Noor’s father, Shaukat Ali Muqadam, had been made the respondents.
The petition contended that the problem of Zahir’s alleged “unsoundness of thoughts or psychological capability” that was raised earlier than the SC in an utility had not been addressed and was “given brief shrift”.
On the rape costs, the assessment plea argued that it was “obvious from the report that there isn’t any proof on the report in proof of this allegation”.
Extra to comply with
